RELA'SION OF EIJGLISH COMPOSITIONS WRITTEN DURING SPRING SEIvESTZR

OF 1951 BY SOPHOMOmS EJ!TROLL~~D AT SOUTIl,iEST TEXAS STATE

TEACmRS COLLEGE TO COOPERATIVE ZNGLISB TEST TAICEN

DURING SPRING SEIGSTER OF 1951 BY TIE SAEB GROUP

Approved :

Approved:

Dean, Graduate s t u d i e s

RELATION OF ENGLISH COMPOSITIONS 1..ffiITTEN DtJRING SPRING SEIvJESTER

OF 1951 BY SOPHOMORES ENROLLED AT SOUTHHEST TEXAS STATE

TEACHZRS COLLEGE TO COOPERATIVE ENGLISH TEST TAKEN

DURING SPRING SENESTER OF 1951 BY THE SAl\jE GROUP

Approved:

Approved:

-@a..v<:d:v.~Dean, Graduate Studies

RELATION OF XRGLIS& COl+iPOS-LTI ONS WRITTBlT D-CiFlrNG SPriTMG s~i.3S'ilER

OF 1951. BY SOPROIJIORES ENROLLED AT S0UTR:EST TEJXAS STATE

TEACmHS COLLBGZ TO COOPERATIVE ENGLISB TEST TAKEIJ

DURI.I'JG SPRING SEjESTI3R OF 1951 BY TEIZ SR1.Z GROUP

Presented t o the Graduate Council of

Southwest Texas S ta te Teachers College

i n Pa r t i a l Fulf5llmen-b of

t h e Requirements

For .the Degree of

bin ST ER OF ARTS

Paula lCae LaForge, B. S. (Marble F a l l s , Texas)

San Mar co s , Texas

August, 1952

RELATION OF ENGLISH COB-POSIT I ONS \'IRITTEH DURING SPRING SB1·2STER

OF 1951 BY SOPHOMORES ENROLLED AT SOU"TW,'!EST TEXAS STATE

TEACHERS COLLEGE TO COOPERATIVE ENGLISH TEST TAKEN

DURING SPRING SEHESTER OF 1951 BY THE SAl·ill GROUP

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of

Southwest Texas State Teachers College

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements

For the Degree of

MARrpgR OF ARTS

By

Paula Kae LaForge, B. S.(Marble Falls, Texas)

San Marcos, Texas

August, 1952

The w r i t e r wishes t o express h e r s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o

D r . David F, Votaw, chairman of t h e committee, f o r h i s adv ice

and guidance during t h e p repa ra t ion of t h i s study.

Spec i a l acknowledgment i s a l s o made of t h e a s s i s t a n c e of

D r . L. N , Wright and of D r . J. Llc , who served as

members of t h e committee.

Paula Kae LaForge

San Marcos, Texas

June, 1952

ACKNOWLEDGMEIITS

The writer wishes to express her sincere gratitude to

Dr. David F. Votaw, chairman of the committee, for his advice

and guidance during the preparation of this study.

Special acknoWledgment is also made of the assistance of

Dr. L. N. Wright and of Dr. J. Llc , who served as

members of the committee.

Paula Kae LaForge

San Marcos, Texas

June, 1952

TABLE OF COi'TI%NTS

Chapter Page

I . THEPROBLEMDEFINED . . . . e 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Limitat ions of the Study 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Def in i t ions of Terms 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Adequacy of Evaluation

Standardized English t e s t 5 . . . . . . . . . .

Written Compositions 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aids f o r Achieving Accurate and E f f e c t i v e 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation 13 Evaluation of Soutll~rest Texas S t a t e Teachers

College Sophomore Writ ten Compositions . . . 1 5 The General Plan of Evaluation . . . . . . , 16 Adequacy of Evaluation of Southwest Texas

S t a t e Teachers College Papers . . . . . . . 1 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1 . TREATbENT OF THE DATA 25'

. . . . . . . . . . . . Descript ion of the Data 25 . . . . . . Methods Used i n Comparing the Data 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . Resul ts of Computations 26 . . . . . . . Composition Ratings a s C r i t e r i a 26 Relationships between t h e Two S e t s of Data 28 . . . . . . . . . . . Inves t iga t ion of Causes 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cut off Point 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Description of the Data Q .. .. • • • • • • • • •

l1ethods Used in Comparing the Data ••• • • •Results of Computations • • • • • • • • • • • •

Composition Ratings as Criteria .Relationships between the Two Sets of Data 0

Investigation of Causes •••••••••••The Cutoff Point ••••••••• • • • • •

Statement of the Problem • • • • • • • • • • •Importance of the Study • • • • • 0 • • • • • •

Limitations of the Study •• • • • • • • • • •Definitions of Terms •••••••••••••Adequacy of Evaluation ••• • • • • • • • • •

Standardized English test • • • ••• • •Written Compositions •••••• • • • • ••Aids for Achieving Accurate and Effective

Evaluation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..Evaluation of Southvlest Texas state Teachers

College Sophomore Written Compositions •••The General Plan of Evaluation •.• • • • • 0

Adequacy of Evaluation of Southwest Texasstate Teachers College Papers .. • • • • • ..

• •

. . . . . . . . . .

1

13335

~13

1516

19

25

2526262628374-0

~·3

4-4

51

• •

• • • •

• • •

• •

· . . . . .· . . . . .· . . . . .

• •

.. . .

• • • •

• • • •

· . . .

• •

• •

• •

. . . . . . . .BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE PROBLEM DEFINED • • • •

TREATMENT OF THE DATA • • •

SID/lMARY AND CmWLUSIONS •

APPENDIX

I.

II.

III.

LIST OF TABL3S

Tabla Page

IV.

VII . VIII.

IX.

Composition-Rating Chart . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation Composition Ratings

Correlation Coefficients for tllritten Composi- tions and Cooperative English Tests . . . . .

Effectiveness of Expression (Actual Numbers) . . Effectiveness of Expression (percentages) . . . Reading Comprellension (Actual tiunbercs) . . . . Reading Comprehension (Percentages) . . . . . Total English (Actual Imbers) . . . . . . . . Total English (Percentages) . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Composition Ratings and EfZectiveness of Expression . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

V. Effectiveness of Expression (Percentages)

Correlation Coefficients for Written Composi­tions and Cooperative English Tests •••

Effectiveness of Expression (Actual Numbers)

· . . . . .

· . . .. . .

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

17

18

• •

• •

• • •

• • • •

• • • • •

• • .. • 0

· . . . .. .. ... . . .

Reading Comprehension (Actual Nwnbers) •

Composition-Rating Chart •••••••

Reading Comprehension (Percentages)

Total English (Actual Numbers) •

Total English (Percentages)

Interpretation of Composition Ratings

IV.

I.

II.

III.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

x. Correlation of Composition Ratings andEffectiveness of Expression • • • • • • • •• 36

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM DEFIIVHD

Writ ten composition has been used f o r many yea r s as a

bas ic means f o r determination of a s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o use

t h e English language e f fec t ive ly . The s tandardized t e s t ,

although of a more recent o r i g i n , i s a l s o widely used f o r the

same purpose. The comparisons made between t h e s e two bases

i n t h i s s tudy a r e exploratory and very l imi ted .

Statement of J& Problem

I n any co l l ege or un ive r s i ty , t h e r e a r e those s tudents

who have not acquired an adequate working a b i l i t y t o do

w r i t t e n composition by the time of completion of t h e f i r s t

English conlposition courses which a r e u s u a l l y r equ i red during

t h e f i r s t yea r of co l lege . Hence, t h e need a r i s e s f o r

remedial work. The next s t e p i s t o discover which s tuden t s

should be r e q u i r e d t o do a d d i t i o n a l work i n Eng l i sh composi-

t i o n . As a p a r t of the so lu t ion t o t h i s problem, t h e

English department of Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College

s e t up a t e n t a t i v e plan i n the form of a composition-

evaluat ing program f o r evaluat ing i t s sophomores' a b i l i t y

. t o do w r i t t e n composition.

Because of the grea t amount of time and e f f o r t required t o

c a r r y out an annual program of composition e v a l u a t i o n f o r

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM DEFINED

Written composition has been used for many years as a

basic means for determination of a student's ability to use

the English language effectively. The standardized test,

although of a more recent origin, is also widely used for the

same purpose. The comparisons made between these two bases

in this study are exploratory and very limited.

Statement of the Problem

In any college or university, there are those students

who have not acquired an adeQuate working ability to do

written composition by the time of completion of the first

English composition courses which are usually required during-

the first year of college. Hence, the need arises for

remedial il/ork. The next step is to discover which students

should be required to do additional work in English composi-

tion. As a part of the solution to this problem, the

English department of Southwest Texas State Teachers College

set up a tentative plan in the form of a composition-

evaluating program for evaluating its sophomores' ability

to do written composition.

Because of the great amount of time and effort required to

carry out an annual program of composition evaluation for

sophomores, the question arose as to the possibility of

there being some substitute procedure which would do the same

job effectively, but which would require a lesser amount of

time and effort.

Since an objective testing program which includes all

Southwest Texas State Teachers College sophomores is also

administered annually during the spring semester, the question

was raised as to the use of the English tests included in

this program as a means of evaluating sophomore writing

ability.

It was the purpose of this study to investigate this

possibility (1) by comparing the level of performance in

written composition of each sophomore with his score made on

a standardized test in English, and (2) by using the mitten

compositions as a criterion for determining adequate ability

in order to investigate further by establishing a cutoff point

on the standardized test score-scale to mark the minimum

adequacy of ability to do written composition.

The comparisons were made primarily by correlating the

composition ratings with test scores made on the whole, the

parts, and groups of the parts of the standardized English

test.

2

sophomores, the question arose as to the possibility of

there being some substitute procedure which would do the same

job effectively, but which would require a lesser amount of

time and effort.

Since an objective testing program which includes all

Southwest Texas State Teachers College sophomores is also

administered annually during the spring semester, the question

Ivas raised as to the use of the English tests included in

this program as a means of evaluating sophomore writing

ability.

It was the purpose of this study to investigate this

possibility (1) by comparing the level of performance in

written composition of each sophomore with his score made on

a standardized test in English, and (2) by using the vITitten

compositions as a criterion for determining adequate ability

in order to investigate further by establishing a cutoff point

on the standardized test score-scale to mark the minimum

adequacy of ability to do written composition.

The comparisons were made primarily by correlating the

composition ratings with test scores made on the whole, the

parts, and groups of the parts of the standardized English

test.

Importance of the Study

This study is the first to be made of the present

sophomore English evaluating program in this college. The

spring semester of 1951 was the first semester during which

sophomore students were required to write compositions

within an organized composition-evaluating program as a means

of evaluation of ability; that is, it was the first time

they were required to write using criteria set up by the

English department as a whole as a means of evaluation.

However, the standardized English test has been given to

several previous classes of sophomore students. This study

is an exploratory one which serves possibly as a basis for

further investigation.

Limitations the Study

Since the evaluation program is a relatively new one

and is experimental in nature, this study is limited to

information which could be taken from work done in the spring

semester of 1951.

Definitions of Terms

Composition,--The two primary methods of communication,

speaking and writing, can be placed in one category:

composition. Composition implies composing, that is, putting

3

Importance ot the Study

This study is the first to be made of the present

sophomore English evaluating program in this college. The

spring semester of 1951 was the first semester during which

sophomore students were required to write compositions

within an organized composition-evaluating program as a means

of evaluation of ability; that is, it was the first time

they were required to write using criteria set up by the

English department as a whole as a means of evaluation.

However, the standardized English test has been given to

several previous classes of sophomore students. This study

is an exploratory one which serves possibly as a basis for

further investigation.

Limitations of the Study

Since the evaluation program is a relatively new one

and is experimental in nature, this study is limited to

information which could be taken from work done in the spring

semester of 1951.

Definitions of Terms

Compositiono--The two primary methods of communication,

speaking and writing, can be placed in one category:

composition. Composition implies composing, that is, putting

thoughts t oge the r and communicating them by speaking o r

w r i t i n g so a s t o be understood by others.' Wr i t t en composi-

t i o n i s t h e on ly phase which w i l l be d e a l t w i th i n t h i s study.

Harry Shaw says , "The whole process of w r i t t e n composition con-

s i s t s of two s t e p s : . . . t he f i r s t s t ep i s th ink ing ; t h e

second i s w r i t i n g . These two a r e inseparab ly linked.It 2

Evaluation.--When t h e value o r amount of th ink ing and

w r i t i n g which have been produced by an i n d i v i d u a l i n wri t ing

a composition has been a sce r t a ined , t h e composition i s s a i d

t o have been evaluated.

Adequacy _ofi eva1.uation.--If t h e eva lua t ion of a paper

o r group of papers i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r the f u l f i l l m e n t of i t s

in t ended purpose, then t h e eva lua t ion i s s a i d t o be

adequate . T-score.--Any d i s t r i b u t i o n of measures whose mean i s

f i f t y and whose standard dev ia t ion i s t en i s s a i d t o be i n

t h e form of T-scores.

' ~ e n r y Se ide l Canby and John Baker Opdycbe, Elements of C o s o s i t i o n f o r Secondaa Schools, p a 1. - -- -

' ~ a r r y Shaw, Complete Course Freshman Engl i sh , pa 4.

4

thoughts together and communicating them by speaking or

writing so as to be understood by others. l Written composi­

tion is the only phase which will be dealt with in this study.

Harry Shaw says, "The whole process of written composition con­

sists of two steps: ••• the first step is thinking; the

second is writing. These two are inseparably linked. 1I2

Evaluation.--When the value or amount of thinking and

writing which have been produced by an individual in writing

a composition has been ascertained, the composition is said

to have been evaluated.

Ade9..l1..9:..~ 9f evaluation.--If the evaluation of a paper

or group of papers is sufficient for the fulfillment of its

intended purpose, then the evaluation is said to be

adequate.

~-sco~.--Any distribution of measures whose mean is

fifty and whose standard deviation is ten is said to be in

the form of T-scores.

IHenry Seidel Canby and John Baker Opdycke, Element 8 ofComppsitiQn for Second~ Schools, p. 1.

2Harry Shaw, ComR~ Course in Freshm~ ~nglish,p. 4.

Adequacx of Evaluat ion

I n t h i s s e c t i o n of the s tudy , the a t tempt i s made t o

determine whether t h e evaluat ion of t he s t anda rd i zed Eng l i sh

t e s t s and t h e w r i t t e n compositions was adequate ,

Standardized Engl i sh Test

The s tandard ized English t e s t used i n t h i s case \Jas

e n t i r e l y o b j e c t i v e , and the answer shee ts were scored on a

rights-minus-wrongs bas i s . S u f f i c i e n t t e s t s have been made

by t h e au tho r s of t he t e s t t o prove i t s a p p r o p r i a t e v a l i d i t y

and r e l i a b i l i t y . Therefore, i t i s s a f e t o assume t h a t t h e

e v a l u a t i o n of t h e s tandardized Engl i sh t e s t was adequate.

Wri t ten Compositions

The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t he eva lua t ion of t h e compositions

i s n o t n e a r l y s o ob jec t ive as t h a t of t he s t anda rd i zed t e s t

and must be considered. from s e v e r a l viewpoints o t h e r t h a n

t h a t of merely scor ing answer s h e e t s r i g h t o r wrong a s i s done

i n t h e case of t h e standardized t e s t s . The i m p o s s i b i l i t y of

judging cornposition accurate ly a s r i g h t or wrong i s a t r e l l -

known f a c t ; hence, t h e following paragraphs w i l l be devoted

t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the eva lua t ion of w r i t t e n Engl i sh

composition and then , more s p e c i f i c a l l y , t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n

of t h e eva lua t ion of the compositions used i n t h i s study.

5

Adegua~ of Evaluation

In this section of the study, the attempt is made to

determine whether the evaluation of the standardized English

tests and the written compositions was adequate o

Standardized English Test

The standardized English test used in this case '\'las

entirely objective, and the answer sheets were scored on a

rights-minus-wrongs basis. Sufficient tests have been made

by the authors of the test to prove its appropriate validity

and reliability. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the

evaluation of the standardized English test was adequate.

Written Compositions

The effectiveness of the evaluation of the compositions

is not nearly so objective as that of the standardized test

and must be considered from several viel/lpoints other than

that of merely scoring answer sheets right or wrong as is done

in the case of the standardized tests. The impossibility of

judging composition accurately as right or wrong is a \oTell­

known fact; hence, the following paragraphs will be devoted

to an investigation of the evalu.ation of vlritten English

composition and then, more specifically, to an investigation

of the evaluation of the compositions used in this study.

The % r r i t e r l s purposes i n making t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of

t h e evalua t ion of w r i t t e n English composition may be deficcd

by t h e following statements :

1. To discover what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of conposition

a r e evaluated

2. To determine some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a n efi?ective

evalua tor

3. To review some prevalent methods of conposition

eva lua t ion

4. To corripile some a i d s f o r achieving accura te and

e f f e c t i v e evalua t ion of w r i t t e n composition

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of corn~os i t ion which should evaluated.

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a paper t ~ h i c h might be considered ir ,

eva lua t ing i t s composition a r e innumerable. Probably three

which a r e bes t known a r e t h e o l d f a v o r i t e s , u n i t y , coherence,

and emphasis, Tliere a r e many o t h e r s , l io~rever, which may or

may not be included when one i s speaking of t h e aforementioned

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

Joseph M. Bachelor and Ralph L. Henry l i s t i n t h e i r chart

f o r checking a composition such t h i n g s a s ( 1 ) choice of subject ,

( 2 ) u n i t y , (3) coherence, (4 ) empliasis, (5) words, (6 ) punctua-

t i o n , and (7) mechanical d e t a i l s . 3

3oseph 1.1. Bachelor and Ralph L . IIenry , American - Thinl:ing and \:Jritin~p2, pr 344. 7-

6

The writer's purposes in making this investigation of

the evaluation of written English composition may be defined

by the following statements:

1. To discover what characteristics of conposition

are evaluated

2. To determine some characteristics of an effective

evaluator

3. To review some prevalent methods of composition

evaluation

4. To compile some aids for achieving accurate and

effective evaluation of written composition

Characteristics of composition which should be evaluated.

The characteristics of a paper which might be considered in

evaluating its composition are innumerable. Probably three

which are best known are the old favorites, unity, coherence,

and emphasise There are many others, hmrever, ':lhich mayor

may not be included when one is speaking of the aforementioned

characteristics.

Joseph M. Bachelor and Ralph L. Henry list in their chart

for checking a composition such things as (1) choice of subject,

(2) unity, (3) coherence, (4) emphasis, (5) words, (6) punctua­

tion, and (7) mechanical details. 3

--------3Joseph M. Bachelor and Ralph L. IIenry, American Thinking

anq Wri~ing, p. 344.

Ida Jewett says, I t Content, organiza t ion , f orm--but t h e

g r e a t e s t of these i s content ," and Charles S . Pendleton s t a t e s ,

"An i n s t r u c t o r does 1~11 who reads a theme c h i e f l y t o ge t the

t h i n g which t h e pupil- c h i e f l y intended t o put i n t o it .I1 4.

However, many times the s tudent does not knotr llimself what

he intended t o put i n t o the paper,

One popular book on composition s t r e s s e s t h e appearance

5 of a paper. It i s t h a t author s opinion t h a t a s tudent may not

be capable of wr i t ing beau t i fu l ly , but c e r t a i n l y he can wr i t e

l eg ib ly . Almost any- English teacher w i l l agree t h a t

appearance i s important, e spec ia l ly if he r e c a l l s innumerable

t imes when he has s a t with a paper before him t r y i n g

despera te ly t o d i s t ingu i sh between expressions such as I t good

eggs" and "gold dogs . I1

George Henry f e e l s t h a t the primary a t t r i b u t e of cornposi- 6

t i o n i s s i n c e r i t y on the pa r t of the w r i t e r , Encouragenlent

of s i n c e r i t y he lps the s tudent t o know himself b e t t e r and,

t h e r e f o r e , t o develop liis potent ia l j . t ies as an indiv idual .

4. Lu-cile Turner, ItTheories and P r a c t i c e s i n Evaluation

and Correction of Oral and Written C ~ m p o s i t i o n , ~ ~ Peabody Journa l of Education, XIX (Ifarch, 1942), 267. --I- I I__-

'~homas E. Rankin, Clarence D. Thorpe, and Melvin T . Solve, College Com_uositio4, pp. 755-760.

b ~ e o r g e IIenry, flHow t o Get I n t e r e s t i n g Themes," The English Journal , XXIII: (September, 1944) , 348 *

7

Ida Jevlett says, "Content, organization, form--but the

greatest of these is content," and Charles S. Pendleton states,

"An instructor does uell \'1110 reads a theme chiefly to get the

thing which the pupil chiefly intended to put into it. 1I4

However, many times the student does not knovT himself l,>fhat

he intended to put into the paper.

One popular book on composition stresses the appearance

of a paper. 5 It is that author's opinion that a student may not

be capable of writing beautifully, but certainly he can write

legibly. Almost any English teacher will agree that

appearance is important, especially if he recalls innumerable

times when he has sat with a paper before him trying

desperately to distinguish between expressions such as IIgood

eggs" and "gold dogs .11

George Henry feels that the primary attribute of composi-6

tion is sincerity on the part of the writer. Encouragement

of sincerity helps the student to know himself better and,

therefore, to develop his potentialj.ties as an individual.

4Lucile Turner, "Theories and Practices in Evaluationand Correction of Oral and ~lritten Composition, 11 Peabody:Ji?-llLna=b of Educa..,tion , XIX (JIlarch, 191+2), 267.

5Thomas E. Raw{in, Clarence D. Thorpe, and Melvin T.Solve, College Co~positioll, pp. 755-760.

6George Henry, "How to Get Intere sting Themes, II TheEngli~h Jo~r,~Jl, XXIII (September, 191+~), 348.

Canbj says t h a t good w r i t i n g p resen t s t h r e e s p e c i f i c

problems: (1) s t r a i g h t th ink ing , (2) adequate express ions , 7

and (3) good form. Ifken t h e s e t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

acceptable composition have been mastered t o a reasonable

degree, then Canby t h i n k s t h a t t h e s tudent may begin t o th ink

about developing s t y l e .

S t i l l another c r i t e r i o n f o r eva lua t ion i s used by

Lucia B. 14i,rrielees. She d i v i d e s t h e marking i n t o two p a r t s :

content and form. By content i s meant t h e way t h a t t h e

subject mat ter has been s e l e c t e d , r e a l i z e d , organized, and

presented. The tec l in ica l e r r o r s wliich a r e made cons t i tu ' t e

e r r o r s i n form. 8

George S. Wykoff says t h a t t h e purpose of co111position

i s the achievement of c o r r e c t , c l e a r , and e f f e c t i v e wr i t ing . 9

A paper should be marked according t o i t s purposes; hence,

cor rec tness , c l e a r n e s s , and general e f f e c t of t h e manuscript

a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be evaluated. TrJykoff cont inues by

saying t h a t t h e teacher should p a r t l y judge t h e conpos i t ion as t o

7 Henry S e i d e l Canby, Engl i sh Compositiion in Theory a&

i n P r a c t i c e , pp. x i l i - x i v , - 8 ~ u c i a B. K i r r i e l e e s , Teaching g o m ~ ~ o s i t i o n L i t e r a t u r e ,

pp. 35-61,

9 ~ o o r g e S. Wyl:oTf, tfSuggestions f o r t h e Reading of Themes, College English, XXI (January, l 9 5 0 ) , 210.

8

Canby says that good "i'lriting presents three specific

problems: (1) straight thinking, (2) adequate expressions,7

and (3) good form. \Vhen these three characteristics of

acceptable composition have been mastered to a reasonable

degree, then Canby thinks that the student may begin to think

about developing style.

Still another criterion for evaluation is used by

Lucia B. ~firrielees. She divides the marking into two parts:

content and form. By content is meant the way that the

subject matter has been selected, realized, organized, and

presented. The technical errors vlhich are made constitute

." 8errors In Iorm.

George S. Wykoff says that the purpose of composition

is the achievement of correct, clear, and effective vlriting. 9

A paper should be marked according to its purposes; hence,

correctness, clearness, and general effect of the manuscript

are characteristics to be evaluated. Wykoff continues by

saying that the teacher should partly judge the composition as to

7Henry Seidel Canby, English Composition in Theory andin Practice, pp. xiii-xiv 0

8Lucia B. Nirrie1ees, Teaching, Composition and Literature,pp. 35-61.

9George s. \'1yl;:off, "Suggestions for the Reading of Themes,"Co11eg~ Englisq, XXI (January, 1950), 210.

i t s adapta t ion t o the reader and t h a t i t i s very impor'tant

t h a t the t eacher make use of a s e t of grading s tandards f o r

t ec l i i~ ica l e r r o r s when marking a composition.

The preceding paragraphs mention only a few c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

which may or may no t , depending upon t h e marker, be taken

i n t o cons idera t ion when reading a composition f o r eva lua t ion

purposes. Innumerable cha r t s f o r marking mechanical d e t a i l s ,

i n which a r e l i s t e d the many comnon e r r o r s which occur, a r e

r e a d i l y ava i l ab le . As f o r t h e appearance, l e g i b i l i t y ,

s i n c e r i t y , s t r a i g h t thinking, adequate expression, general

e f f e c t of t h e manuscript, and a l l the many o ther c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

which a r e i n t a n g i b l e , the p r i v i l e g e t o d iscr iminate i s l e f t

l a r g e l y t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e evaluator . But, i n any

evaluat ion, e s p e c i a l l y when a nunber of papers a r e involved,

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be evaluated should be d e f i n i t e l y s e t

down so as t o l eave a s l i t t l e leeway a s poss ib le t o t h e

d i sc re t ion of the marker,

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 3 e f f e c t i v e evalua tor . --The q u a l i t i e s

which a composition may possess, whether the s tudent has

displayed a moronic point of view or the i n s i g h t of a genius,

matter l i t t l e i f the evaluator i s not compekent. Competency

may include any or a11 of a number of things.

Percy I s a a c Reed and El izabeth Fros t Reed s t a t e t h a t t h e

reader must be acade~nical ly competent t o judge and, above a l l

9

its adaptation to the reader and that it is very important

that the teacher make use of a set of grading standards for

technical errors ''1hen marking a compo sition.

The preceding paragraphs mention only a few characteristics

which mayor may not, depending upon the marker, be taken

into consideration when reading a composition for evaluation

purposes. Innumerable charts for marking mechanical details,

in \vhich are listed the many common errors ,,,hich occur, are

readily available. As for the appearance, legibility,

sincerity, straight thinking, adequate expression, general

effect of the manuscript, and all the many other characteristics

which are intangible, the privilege to discriminate is left

largely to the discretion of the evaluator. But, in any

evaluation, especially when a nrnnber of papers are involved,

the characteristics to be evaluated should be definitely set

down so as to leave as little leeway as possible to the

discretion of the marker.

Characteristics of a~ effective evaluator.--The qualities

which a composition may possess, whether the student has

displayed a moronic point of view or the insight of a genius,

matter little if the evaluator is not competent. Competency

may include any or all of a number of things.

Percy Isaac Reed and Elizabeth Frost Reed state that the

reader must be academically competent to judge and, above all

e l s e , he m-ust be f rank and unprejudiced. 10 Raymond Vi. Pence

says , "After spending h i s time wr i t ing a composition, a s tudent

i s e n t i t l e d t o the very best i n the way of c r i t i c i s m of i t

t h a t a t eacher can From t h i s point of view, it could

be s a i d t h a t t h e evaluator should possess t h e wi l l ingness t o

g ive h i s bes t i n t ime, t r a i n i n g , and a t t i t u d e .

O b j e c t i v i t y on the pa r t of the evaluator i s of utmost

importance. Wykoff s t a t e s t h a t the teacher raust not l e t h i s

l i k e o r d i s l i k e of t h e chosen subjec t o r h i s agreement o r

disagreement wi th ideas presented inf luence t h e mark which

he g ives a paper, 12 Objec t iv i ty of a t t i t u d e to~trard s tuden t s

i s even more important , of course, than toward subject

mat ter .

The foregoing paragraphs may be swaniarized by t h e

fol lowing statement : To evalua te composition adequately,

one should be (1) academically corapetent, ( 2 ) objec t ive i n

a t t i t u d e , and (3) wi l l ing t o give s incere a t t e n t i o n t o t h e

t a s k a t hand. These a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which t h e w r i t e r

b e l i e v e s t o be among the most important recluirements f o r

e f f e c t i v e evalua t ion of a composition.

l0percy I saac Reed and El izabeth Frost Reed, &pl ied Composition, p. 343.

ll~ayrnond W. Pence, College Composition, p . i x .

1 h t b ~ uk d . . d· d 10ese, emus' e Ira an unpreJu lee.

10

Raymond W. Pence

says, IlAfter spending his time writing a composition, a student

is entitled to the very best in the way of criticism of it

that a teacher can give. IIII From this point of vie'YT, it could

be said that the evaluator should possess the willingness to

give his best in time, training, and attitude.

Objectivity on the part of the evaluator is of utmost

importance. Wykoff states that the teacher must not let his

like or dislike of the chosen subject or his agreement or

disagreement with ideas presented influence the mark which

he gives a paper.12 Objectivity of attitude toward students

is even more important, of course, than toward sUbject

matter.

The foregoing pa.ragraphs may be sununarized by the

following statement: To evaluate composition adequately,

one should be (1) academically competent, (2) objective in

attitude, and (3) willing to give sincere attention to the

task at hand. These are characteristics which the writer

believes to be among the most important requirements for

effective evaluation of a composition.

10percy Isaac Reed and Elizabeth Frost Reed, AppliedComp£§ltion, p. 343.

11Raymond W. Pence, Col1eg~ ComP2sition, p. ix.

l2Geor ge S. 1vylwff, lQ.s.. cit ..

Prevalent methods _ _ I - of comaosition evaluation.--In performing

any t a s k , t h e r e i s usual ly a choice of methods which may be

employed. For evaluat ion of w r i t t e n English composition,

perhaps t h e one most widely used i s t h a t of ass igning l e t t e r

marks, such a s A ( super ior ) , B (above average), C ( ave rage) ,

D (below average) , and F ( f a i l u r e ) . B second method which i s

widely used i s t h a t of ranking papers according t o a g iven

s e t of nunlbers, such a s 1 (super io r ) , 2 ( s a t i s f a c t o r y ) , and 1 3 J-3

3 ( u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ) . I n some cases the percentage bas is i s s t i l l used. The

w r i t e r i s i n c l i n e d t o agree with Lucia B. h l i r r ie lees , however,

when she says, "You know and I know, of course, t h e a b s u r d i t y

fir ,114 of marking one b i t of human experience 8%; and another 87,o.

She says t h a t w r i t t e n composition i s i n r e a l i t y nothing but

human experience, whether i t be of t h e physical , mental , o r

s p i r i t u a l form. Perhaps, when observed i n t h e l i g h t of measuring

human experience, the t d ~ o l e system of evaluating composition

seems t o be of l i t t l e value, and t h e percentage basis seems

merely t o be a b i t more inadequate than o thers because it

does not a f f o r d a s much f l e x i b i l i t y a s some other methods.

13charles Swain Thomas, Teaching of English, PP. 51-70.

11

Prevalent met~ of composition evaluation.--In performing

any task, there is usually a choice of methods which may be

employed. For evaluation of "\'Tritten English composition,

perhaps the one most Widely used is that of assigning letter

marks, such as A (superior), B (above average), C (average),

D (below average), and F (failure). A second method which is

widely used is that of ranking papers according to a given

set of numbers, such as 1 (superior), 2 (satisfactory), and13

3 (unsatisfactory).

In some cases the percentage basis is still used. The

\'Jriter is inclined to agree vIith Lucia B. Nirrielees, hmIever,

,,,hen she says, "You knovI and I knm,'I, of course, the absurdity

of marking one bit of human experience 851b and another 871b. ,,14­

She says that vJritten composition is in reality nothing but

human experience, whether it be of the physical, mental, or

spiritual form. Perhaps, when observed in the light of measuring

human experience, the '~10le system of evaluating composition

seems to be of little value, and the percentage basis seems

merely to be a bit more inadequate than others because it

does not afford as much flexibility as some other methods.

l3Charles Swain Thomas, The Teaching of English,PP. 51-70.

l4-Lucia B. Mirrielees, QQ. cit., p. 47.

To increase f l e x i b i l i t y of marks t o some degree,

Mi r r i e l ees has devised a method of marking composition vtlereby

A D B C two marks a r e given t o a composition, t h a t i s , C, 3, E , g,

i n which t h e content c red i t i s recorded by the t o p mark and

t h e c r e d i t given f o r fo rn by t h e bottom mark. The author

of t h i s system claims a twofold advantage f o r it. F i r s t , the

grader i s a s s i s t e d i n obtaining a broader outlook of the

paper. I f he gives the student a grade on both content and

form, he i s forced t o judge the paper from a t l e a s t two points

of view. The second advantage which might be mentioned is the

f a c t t h a t t h i s method i s of value t o t h e student himself

because, by receiving h i s mark i n two d iv is ions , he can nore

r e a d i l y see h i s weaknesses and h i s strong points .

Another method f o r determining marks i s t h a t based on

a r i thmet ic computation involving the nmiber of words contained

i n the composition and the number of e r r o r s made, l6 This

method was derived by Helen Bosworth, West Spr ingf ie ld ,

Massachusetts, and i t i s a v a r i a t i o n of Lucia B. 14irrielees'

me1;hod.

For more object ive evaluat ion, severa l composition scales

have been developed, Mi r r i e l ees gives t h e following discussion

of t h e i r r e l a t i v e value:

12

To increase flexibility of marks to some degree,

Hirrielees has devised a method of marking composition \'lhereby

t k . A DBCvlO mar s are given to a composition, that 18

, C' 13' A' 13'in which the content credit is recorded by the top mark and

the credit given for form by the bottom mark.15 The author

of this system claims a twofold advantage for it. First, the

grader is assisted in obtaining a broader outlook of the

paper. If he gives the student a grade on both content and

form, he is forced to judge the paper from at least b,O points

of view. The second advantage which might be mentioned is the

fact that this method is of value to the student himself

because, by receiving his mark in two divisions, he can more

readily see his we~{nesses and his strong points.

Another method for determining marks is that based on

arithmetic computation involving the nun1ber of words contained

in the composition and the number of errors made~16 This

method was derived by Helen Bosworth, West Springfield,

Hassachusetts, and it is a variation of Lucia B. Hirrielees l

method.

For more objective evaluation, several composition scales

have been developed. Mirrielees gives the following discussion

of their relative value:

15Ibicl_, pp. 35-61.

16Ibi d;., p. 495-

. . . t h e chief d i f f i c u l t y of t h e s e s c a l e s i s t h a t of applying them. One pupi l d i f f e r s so g r e a t l y from another i n vocabulary, s t y l e of ~ r r i t i n g , p e r s o n a l i t y , t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare a p u p i l ' s pager with a p r i n t e d model and reach a conclusion. Teachers can t r a i n themselves t o use composition s c a l e s , but t h e average teacher with a f u l l schedule w i l l f i n d t h a t whi le s c a l e s deal ing nth mechanics a r e invaluable , s c a l e s dea l ing v i t h composition content a r e exceedingly d i f f i c u l t and time-taking . Three of t h e well-known composition s c a l e s a r e these : Huddelsonls Engl i sh Comaosition Scale (World Book Company, Yonkers, New York); Nassau County Su-oplement t o " t h e H i l l e w Scale for ~ o m p o s i t i o n ~ ~ o r l d Book Company, Yonlcers, New York); and t h e l e t t e r s c a l e s c a l l e d Sca les for 14easurine; Spec ia l Types of C+nposi t ions (World Book Company, Yonkers, Nev York) . 1

Aids f o r Achieving Accurate and E f f e c t i v e Evalua t ion

The fol lowing l i s t of a i d s f o r achieving a c c u r a t e and

e f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of w r i t t e n composition w a s compiled from

an a r t i c l e by Paul B. Diederich:

1, Papers must not be marked f o r content a lone

2, The t o p i c must be wi th in t h e scope of t h e

s tudent but not too easy

3. The form of wr i t ing niust be one with which t h e

s t u d e n t s a r e f a m i l i a r

4. The t o p i c should have been s e l e c t e d some

tirile ahead of the w r i t i n g period

5. The composition rnust be w r i t t e n i n c l a s s t o prevent

out s i d e a s s i s t a n c e

13

• • • the chief difficulty of these scales is that ofapplying them. One pupil differs so greatly fromanother in vocabulary, style of ",rriting, personality,that it is difficult to compare a pupilts paper witha printed model and reach a conclusion. Teacherscan train themselves to use composition scales, butthe average teacher with a full schedule will findthat while scales dealing vath mechanics are invaluable,scales dealing with composition content are exceedinglydifficult and time-taking. Three of the well-knowncomposition scales are these: Huddelsonts EnglishComDosition Scale (World Book Company, Yonkers, NewYork); Nassau County Suuplement to the HillegaAScale for Compos~tion~JorldBook Company, Yonkers,New York); and the letter scales called Scales forHeasuring Special Types .2! Cj~POSi tions (vlorld BookCompany, Yorucers, New York).

Aids for Achieving Accurate and Effective Evaluation

The following list of aids for achieving accurate and

effective evaluation of ~~itten composition was compiled from

an article by Paul B. Diederich:

1. Papers must not be marked for content alone

2~ The topic must be within the scope of the

student but not too easy

3. The form of 'dri ting must be one vath which the

students are familiar

4. The topic should have been selected some

time ahead of the writing period

5. The composition must be written in class to prevent

outside assistance

---------

l7-[bOd.:..-.l::.-. , p. 49 •

6. k t l e a s t two essays on d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s a r e needed

f o r r e l i a b l e measure

7. A l l s t u d e n t s should w r i t e on t h e same assignment

8. S u f f i c i e n t time rnust be allowed

9. The papers must be judged according t o formulated

c r i t e r i a made i n advance 18

An e s s e n t i a l r e q u i s i t e f o r accura te eva lua t ion i s given

by Aust in J. App, who s t a t e s , "When I grade t h e papers of my

s tudents my s c a l e i s not the norm of p e r f e c t i o n of t h e ages,

of Shalrespeare and Dante, but of t h e classroom. 1119

There a r e probably a s many d i f r ' e ~ e n t s e t s of c r i t e r i a

f o r composition eva lua t ion as t h e r e a r e Engl i sh i n s t r u c t o r s .

Robinson H, Shiphexd says ,

The reader must have t h e most f a i r and r a t i o n a l understanding of t h e e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i o n as it i s reasonably poss ib le t o have. It makes a s t o n i s h i n g l y l i t t l e d i f l e r e n c e what those method3 a r e , so they be mainly reasonable and c o n s i s t e n t .-0

It may be noted t h a t each of t h e a i d s l i s t e d i n t h e

foregoing d i scuss ion i s bas ic t o cor-nposi-Lion marking. It i s

impossible t o say, though, t h a t a composition has been

18 Paul B. D i e d e ~ i c h , "The 1~iIea.su.rement of S k i l l i n Writing , I r

School Review, L I V (December, 194-6), 588.

1 9 ~ u s t i n J. App, "Old Ben Jonson on Grading composition^,^^ College Engl ish , X I V (February, 19b3) , 318. -

2 0 ~ o b i n s o n H. Shipherd, The Fine A r t of i?iri t i= for Those Who Teach It, p. iii.

14

6. At least two essays on different topics are needed

for reliable measure

7. All students should write on the same assignment

8. Sufficient time must be allowed

9. The papers must be judged according to formulated

°t ° d' d 18crl erla WB e ln a vance

An essential requisite for accurate evaluation is given

by Austin J. App, vTho states, "\tlhen I grade the papers of my

students my scale is not the norm of perfection of the ages,

of Shakespeare and Dante, but of the classroom.,,19

There are probably as many different sets of criteria

for composition evaluation as there are English instructors.

Robinson H. Shipherd says,

The reader must have the most fair and rationalunderstanding of the evaluation criterion as itis reasonably possible to have. It makesastonishingly little difference what those method@are, so they be mainly reasonable and consistent.~O

It may be noted that each of the aids listed in the

foregoing discussion is basic to composition marking. It is

impossible to say, though, that a composition has been

-----,----l8pau1 B. Diederich, liThe Measurement of Skill in Vlriting,1I

School Review, LrV (December, 1946), 588.

19Austin J. App, "Old Ben Jonson on Grading Compositions,"Ool+e&.e English, XIV (February, 19l~3), 318.

20Robinson H. Shipherd, The Fine Art of I'lritiI},g for Those\'lho Teach It, p. iii.

evaluated adequately i f the l i s t has been adhered t o , o r t h a t

a composition has not received t h e necessary a t t e n t i o n i f these

suggestions a r e not followed. The l i s t i s f l e x i b l e . Any s e t

of c r i t e r i a may be used, but t h a t s e t inust be fol lowed p r e c i s e l y

by the marker once it i s s e t up i f t h e eva lua t ion i s t o be

v a l i d ,

Perhaps t h e evaluation of a w r i t t e n composition, i f i t i s

e f f e c t i v e l y done, i s the most d i f f i c u l t and d i sconcer t ing

t a s k t h a t a teacher must undertalce, There a r e many a s p e c t s

of the process whic!i a re in tang ib le and t h e marking of whicli

i s l e f t t o t h e d i sc re t ion of t h e manuscript r eader , However,

i f the evaluat ions of compositions a r e t o be comparable,

t h e r e i s one precedent which must not be v i o l a t e d , The

evalua t ions must be based on one common s e t of c r i t e r i a ,

Evaluation of Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College Sophomore IWritten Compositions -

The purpose of the evaluat ion of the set of sophonlore

w r i t t e n compositions has previously been s t a t e d i n t h e

beginning of the study as follows: t o d iscover which

s tudents have not acquired an adequate a b i l i t y t o do English

w r i t t e n composition and, the re fo re , need a d d i t i o n a l work i n

English, A complete l i s t of t h e s tudents ! t e s t s c o r e s and

composition r a t i n g s i s given i n the Appendix of t h i s study.

evaluated adequately if the list has been adhered to, or that

a composition has not received the necessary attention if these

suggestions are not followed. The list is flexible. Any set

of criteria may be used, but that set lllUSt be followed precisely

by the marker once it is set up if the evaluation is to be

valid.

Perhaps the evaluation of a written composition, if it is

effectively done, is the most difficult and disconcerting

task that a teacher must undertake. There are many aspects

of the process which are intangible and the marlcing of which

is left to the discretion of the manuscript reader. However,

if the evaluations of compositions are to be comparable,

there is one precedent which must not be violatedo The

evaluations must be based on one common set of criteria.

Evaluation of Southwest T~xas State Teachers CollegeS0-Rhomor~ Written ComQosition~

The purpose of the evaluation of the set of sophonlore

written compositions has previously been stated in the

beginning of the study as follows: to discover which

students have not acquired an adequate ability to do English

written composition and, therefore, need additional work in

English. A complete list of the students' test scores and

composition ratings is given in the Appendix of this study.

The General Plan of Zvaluat ion

Each s tuden t Who was c l a s s i f i e d a s a sonhomore and

who was c u r r e n t l y enro l led i n an Engl i sh c l a s s during t he

s p r i n g semester of 1951 was r equ i r ed t o wr i te a congosition.

The vork was done i n t h e classroom, and the s tuden ts were given

a two-hour per iod i n which t o w r i t e t h e i r conposit ions. They

were i n s t r u c t e d t o w r i t e on some sub jec t per ta ining t o t h e i r

major f i e l d of s tudy while i n co l l ege .

The form presented i n Table I was used a s a c r i t e r i o n

f o r t h e eva lua t ion of t h e compositions. Each s t u d e n t ' s paper

was r a t e d according t o t h e composit ion-rat ing cha r t by a

f a c u l t y meinber from t h e s tudent s major department. Then the

paper was r a t e d by a member of t h e Engl ish department. I f ,

a f t e r t h e s e two r a t i n g s , t h e paper received combined r a t i n g s

of (1) and ( 1 ) o r (1) and (2), t h e paper was not r a t ed again,

and i t was asswned t h a t t h e s tuden t s a b i l i t y t o do w r i t t e n

composit ion was adequate. I f , a f t e r tr.ro r a t i n g s , t h e paper

d i d no t r ece ive e i t h e r of t h e above r a t i n g combinations of

( 1 ) and (1) o r (1 ) and ( 2 ) , i t was s e n t t o a t h i r d reader ,

u s u a l l y a person from a department o the r than t h e s tuden t ' s

rnajor department o r t he Engl ish department. I n t h a t manner

i t was given a t h i r d r a t i ng .

~f any paper received a s lot? as even a s ing l e t o t a l

crradc r a t i n g of (3) from any one of t h e t h r ee readers , t h a t b

16

The General Plan of Evaluation

Each student who was classified as a sophomore and

who was currently enrolled in an English class during the

spring semester of 1951 was required to write a composition.

The I-Tork was done in the classroom, and the students vlere given

a two-hour period in which to write their compositions. They

were instructed to write on some subject pertaining to their

major field of study while in college.

The form presented in Table I was used as a criterion

for the evaluation of the compositions. Each student's paper

was rated according to the composition-rating chart by a

faculty member from the student's major department. Then the

paper was rated by a member of the English department. If,

after these two ratings, the paper received combined ratings

of (1) and (1) or (1) and (2), the paper was not rated again,

and it ".,ras assumed that the student's ability to do ':lritten

composition was adequate. If, after two ratings, the paper

did not receive either of the above rating combinations of

(1) and (1) or (1) and (2), it was sent to a third reader,

usually a person from a department other than the student's

major department or the English department. In that manner

it was given a third rating.

If any paper received as low as even a single total

grade rating of (3) from anyone of the three readers, that

TABLE I

COMPOSITION-EWT I N G C M R T

-

WRITTEN ENGLISH GFiADE SHEET

GRRDE SYIJBOLS: 1 equals " c l ea r ly sa t i s fac to ry t1

2 ind ica tes some doubt on the par t of t h e g r a d e r

3 equals " c l ea r ly unsat isfactoryt '

Grader Spel l , Leg. Punct. Sent. Gram. Organ. Gen. Grade Struct . E f f e c t

Spel l ing , l e g i b i l i t y , and punctuation a r e r e l a t i v e l y of minor irnportance i n grading, wi th grammar, sentence s t r u c t u r e , organizat ion, and general ef fec t iveness i n developing t h e top i c of major importance.

17

TABLE I

COMPOSITION-RATING CHART

WRITTEN ENGLISH GRADE SHEET

STUDENT'S NA~·1E DEPARTr<IENT--------------GRADESYI~mOLS: 1 equals "clearly satisfactorytl

2 indicates some doubt on the part of the grader

3 equals trclearly unsatisfactorytl

Grader Spell o Leg. Punct. Sent. Gram. Organ. Gen. GradeStruct. Effect

Spelling, legibility, and punctuation are relatively of minorimportance in grading, with grammar, sentence structure,organization, and general effectiveness in developing thetopic of major importance.

s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o do wr i t t en composition was said t o be

inadequate according t o t he ra t ings ; and he was advised to

do some remedial work, perhaps i n t h e form of an advanced

composition o r grammar course, depending upon h i s individual

needs, Those papers which Irere r a ted three times and did

n o t r ece ive any ( 3 ) ' s were designated as sa t i s fac tory work.

For g r ea t e r ease i n comparing the composition ra t ings

w i t h t h e t e s t scores , a l l t h e combinations of composition

r a t i n g s were asce r t a ined and then ra ted according t o t h e i r

va r ious numerical averages, Table I1 explains the composition

r a t i n g s 0 through 6 which w i l l be used throughout t h i s study

i n s t e a d of t h e o r i g i n a l (11, (21, and (3).

TABLE I1

IIWERPFG3TATION OF COMPOSITION RATINGS

Occurring Combinations

Numerical Composition Averages Ratings

1 and 1 1 and 2 2 , 2 , and 1 2, 2, and 2 2, 2 , and 3 3 and 2 3 and 3

18

student's ability to do written composition was said to be

inadequate according to the ratings; and he was advised to

do some remedial work, perhaps in the form of an advanced

composi tion or gramm.ar course, depending upon his individual

needs~ Those papers which were rated three times and did

not receive any (3)'s were designated as satisfactory work.

For greater ease in comparing the composition ratings

with the test scores, all the combinations of composition

ratings vlere ascertained and then rated according to their

various numerical averages. Table II explains the composition

ratings 0 through 6 which will be used throughout this study

instead of the original (1), (2), and (3).

TABLE II

INTERPRETATION OF COMPOSITION RATINGS

OccurringCombinations

1 and 11 and 22, 2, and 12, 2, and 22, 2, and 33 and 23 and 3

NumericalAverages

1.001.501.672.002.332.503.00

CompositionRatings

6

~321o

=="= _._-:=-=========-=:"===========================

Adequacy of Evaluation of Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College Papers

A s s t a t e d i n a previous sec t ion , the adequacy of evalua-

t i o n of a w r i t t e n composition depends upon t h e f u l f i l l m e n t

of t h e intended purpose of the evaluat ion, which, i n t h i s

case, was t o discover whether o r not the sophomore s tudents

could produce acceptable w r i t t e n composition, However, t h e

f u l f i l l m e n t of t h i s purpose depends upon s e v e r a l f a c t o r s .

Four which were considered t h e most important by t h e w r i t e r

have been previously inves t iga ted i n t h i s s tudy i n t h e sec t ion

dealing with "Adequacy of EvaZuation.tt They r e f e r t o

(1) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of composition which a r e evaluated,

( 2 ) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an e f f e c t i v e eva lua to r , (3) methods of

evaluat ion, and (4) a i d s t o e f f e c t i v e evalua t ion of composi-

t i o n . It would appear, the re fo re , t h a t i f t h e evalua t ion

of the Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College papers f u l f i l l e d

t h e c r i t e r i a s e t up by these four f a c t o r s , t h e n the evalua-

t i o n was adequate.

I n a previous sec t ion , numerous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

compositions which could be evaluated were l i s t e d . The

conclusion was t h a t it matters l i t t l e ~ ~ l ~ i c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

a re evaluated; the most important poin t i s t h a t t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s be s e t up d e f i n i t e l y , so a s t o leave as

l i t t l e leeway as possible t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e marker,

I n the case of t h e sophomore papers, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were

19

Adequacy of Evaluation of Southwest Texas StateTeachers College Papers

As stated in a previous section, the adequacy of evalua­

tion of a written composition depends upon the fulfillment

of the intended purpose of the evaluation, which, in this

case, was to discover whether or not the sophomore students

could produce acceptable written composition. However, the

fulfillment of this purpose depends upon several factors.

Four which were considered the most important by the writer

have been previously investigated in this study in the section

dealing vIi th IIAdequacy of Evaluation." They refer to

(1) characteristics of composition which are evaluated,

(2) characteristics of an effective evaluator, (3) methods of

evaluation, and (4) aids to effective evaluation of composi­

tion. It would appear, therefore, that if the evaluation

of the Southwest Texas state Teachers College papers fulfilled

the criteria set up by these four factors, then the evalua­

tion was adequate.

In a previous section, numerous characteristics of

compositions which could be evaluated were listed. The

conclusion was that it matters little which characteristics

are evaluated; the most important point is that the

characteristics be set up definitely, so as to leave as

little leeway as possible to the discretion of the marker.

In the case of the sophomore papers, the characteristics were

l i s t e d d e f i n i t e l y on the composition-rating c h a r t t o be

r a t ed (11, (2), or (3) . The evalua tors kne~r which ones were

t o be evaluated; the re fo re , t h e evaluat ion f u l f i l l e d t h e

c r i t e r i a s e t up f o r t h e f i r s t f ac to r .

The second f a c t o r d e a l t with t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an

e f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t o r , The c r i t e r i a previously s t a t e d were

t h a t the eva lua to r should be (1) a-cademically competent,

(2) ob jec t ive i n a t t i t u d e , and (3) wi l l ing t o give s ince re

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t a s k a t hand, The evalua tors of t h e

sophomore papers were a l l members of the col lege f a c u l t y .

Therefore, i t was assumed t h a t they were academically

competent. The second c r i t e r i o n , o b j e c t i v i t y i n a t t i t u d e ,

i s more i n t a n g i b l e and the re fo re more d i f f i c u l t t o judge

whether i t was f u l f i l l -ed s u f f i c i e n t l y . Dif ferences i n

t r a in ing of f a c u l t y menibers might reasonabl-y be expected

t o produce v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e i r approximation t o t h i s

c r i t e r i o n .

As was previously s t a t e d , t h e teacher must not l e t h i s

l i k e or d i s l i k e of the chosen subject or h i s agreement or

disagreement w i t h ideas presented irifl-uence t h e mark which

he gives a paper , Like or d i s l i k e of subjec t matter of t h e

compositions could probably be discarded a s i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n

the case of t h e sophomore papers. The f i r s t r a t i n g was given

by evalua tors who marked papers dealing with t h e i r

20

listed definitely on the composition-rating chart to be

rated (1), (2), or (3). The evaluators knew which ones were

to be evaluated; therefore, the evaluation fulfilled the

criteria set up for the first factor.

The second factor dealt with the characteristics of an

effective evaluator. The criteria previously stated were

that the evaluator should be (1) academically competent,

(2) objective in attitude, and (3) willing to give sincere

attention to the task at hand. The evaluators of the

sophomore papers were all members of the college faculty.

Therefore, it was assumed that they were academically

competent. The second criterion, objectivity in attitude,

is more intangible and therefore more difficult to judge

whether it was fulfilled sufficiently. Differences in

training of faculty members might reasonably be expected

to produce variations in their approximation to this

criterion.

As was previously stated, the teacher must not let his

like or dislike of the chosen subject or his agreement or

disagreement with ideas presented influence the mark which

he gives a paper. Like or dislike of subject matter of the

compositions could probably be discarded as insignificant in

the case of the sophomore papers. The first rating was given

by evaluators who marked papers dealing with their

r e spec t ive departments, which s u b j e c t s t h e y probably l i k e d ;

t h e second r a t i n g s were given by a member of t h e Eng l i sh

department who, because of h i s knowledge of t h e v a r i e t y and

na ture of t h e composit ion-evaluating program and because of

h i s i n t e r e s t i n composition, would not be l i k e l y t o discr im-

i n a t e because of sub jec t mat ter . The t h i r d r a t i n g , f o r

which t h e paper was s e n t t o an academic department o t h e r t h a n

t h a t of t h e s t u d e n t ' s major o r t h e Engl i sh department, would

probably be t h e most vu lnerab le t o t h i s d i s c r imina t ion .

However, i t i s poss ib l e t h a t t h i s aspec t of o b j e c t i v i t y i s

r e l a t i v e l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e o v e r - a l l results.

Pi p o s s i b l e hindrance t o o b j e c t i v i t y of a t t i t u d e toward

s tuden t s might have been t h e f a c t t h a t t h e papers were

i d e n t i f i e d by t h e s t u d e n t s t names. This p r a c t i c e i s

e s p e c i a l l y dangerous i n t h i s case because s t u d e n t s ' papers

were marked by f a c u l t y members from t h e s t u d e n t s 1 major

f i e l d s of s tudy. The i d e a of preconceived judgment of

s tuden t s1 a b i l i t i e s could have been e n t i r e l y c a s t ou t had

t h e papers been u n i d e n t i f i a b l e by t h e eva lua to r s .

From t h i s evidence it was concluded t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

e x i s t s t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e e v a l u a t o r s may o r may not have

been o b j e c t i v e ; bu t by t h e e t h i c s of good t each ing , i t has

been presumed t h a t they were o b j e c t i v e t o t h e b e s t of t h e i r

a b i l i t i e s .

21

respective departments, which subjects they probably liked;

the second ratings were given by a member of the English

department who, because of his knowledge of the variety and

nature of the composition-evaluating program and because of

his interest in composition, would not be likely to discrim­

inate because of subject matter. The third rating, for

which the paper was sent to an academic department other than

that of the student's major or the English department, would

probably be the most vulnerable to this discrimination.

However, it is possible that this aspect of objectivity is

relatively insignificant in the over-all results.

A possible hindrance to objectivity of attitude toward

. students might have been the fact that the papers were

identified by the students' names. This practice is

especially dangerous in this case because students' papers

were marked by faculty members from the students' major

fields of study. The idea of preconceived judgment of

students t abilities could have been entirely cast out had

the papers been unidentifiable by the evaluators.

From this evidence it vIas concluded that the possibility

exists that the attitude of the evaluators mayor may not have

been objective; but by the ethics of good teaching, it has

been presumed that they were objective to the best of their

abilities.

The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n f o r an e f f e c t i v e evalua tor i s t h a t

he be w i l l i n g t o give s incere a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t a s k a t hand.

This i s a l s o a mat ter of e t h i c s , and i t has been assumed t h a t

each evalua tor gave each paper s u f f i c i e n t s tudy and considera-

t i o n ,

The t h i r d f a c t o r f o r f u l f i l l i n g the purpose of adequate

evaluat ion was method of evaluat ion. The method used i n the

evaluat ion of the sophomore papers has been discussed

previously; i t consis ted of a composition-rating cha r t on

which t h e compositions' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were r a t e d (1) c l e a r l y

s a t i s f a c t o r y , (2 ) doubtful ly s a t i s f a c t o r y , and (3) c l e a r l y

unsa t i s fac to ry . This was one of the methods discussed i n

the sec t ion on methods of evaluat ion.

One discrepancy i n regard t o t h i s method has become

prevalent i n t h e case of t h e evaluat ion of t h e sophomore

papers, This a rose from the f a c t t h a t t h e evalua t ion was

ca r r i ed ou t by a number of eva lua tors . This w a s done t o

conserve time; however, t h e f a c t remains t h a t when a s i zab le

group of papers i s marlred by one person, it i s t h e tendency

of the marker t o evaluate the papers along t h e l i n e of the

normal p r o b a b i l i t y d is t r ibu . t ion . bTormally, t h i s method i s

correct and the only one which should be used. However, when

a group of papers c o n s t i t u t e s only a small p a r t of a l a r g e

group, such a s was the case i n t h i s eva lua t ion , where each

22

The third criterion for an effective evaluator is that

he be willing to give sincere attention to the task at hand.

This is also a matter of ethics, and it has been assumed that

each evaluator gave each paper sufficient study and considera­

tion.

The third factor for fulfilling the purpose of adequate

evaluation was method of evaluation. The method used in the

evaluation of the sophomore papers has been discussed

previously; it consisted of a composition-rating chart on

which the compositions' characteristics were rated (1) clearly

satisfactory, (2) doubtfully satisfactory, and (3) clearly

unsatisfactory. This was one of the methods discussed in

the section on methods of evaluation.

One discrepancy in regard to this method has become

prevalent in the case of the evaluation of the sophomore

papers. This arose from the fact that the evaluation was

carried out by a number of evaluators. This was done to

conserve time; however, the fact remains that when a sizable

group of papers is marked by one person, it is the tendency

of the marker to evaluate the papers along the line of the

normal probability distribu.tion. Normally, this method is

correct and the only one which should be used. However, when

a group of papers constitutes only a small part of a large

group, such as was the case in this evaluation, where each

i n s t r u c t o r was given only a few papers t o mark, t h i s method i s

t o some degree i n v a l i d . For example, t he e v a l u a t o r might be

given only t h r e e papers which might poss ib ly be t h e t h r e e

h ighes t ranking papers i n t h e e n t i r e group. Y e t , knowing of

no lower ranking papers , t h e marker n igh t r a t e t h e t h r e e

highest ones as (I), (2 ) , and (3) when i n r e a l i t y , i f r a t e d

wi th t h e e n t i r e group, t h e papers should have a11 r ece ived

r a t i n g s of ( 1 ) . The d i sc repancy l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

eva lua tor would be depr ived of t h e a l l - impor t an t normative

re fe rence by which t o determine r a t i n g s of ( I ) , (2) , o r ( 3 )

and, t h e r e f o r e , be cornpelled t o r e s o r t t o so -ca l l ed s t anda rds

of h i s own. Such s t anda rds a r e known t o d i f f e r widely from

marker t o marker.

Edmistolz and Gingerich made a s tudy s i m i l a r t o t h i s

one, however, i n which t h e r e s u l t s of t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n were

much the same a s t h o s e i n t h i s s tudy; y e t t h e i r papers were

marked by t h e Huddleson Typica l Composition Sca l e by one

evaluator . 21 Perhaps then t h e discrepancy involved when

seve ra l e v a l u a t o r s a r e used was no t a s g r e a t i n t h i s case as

one might be i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k .

The f o u r t h f a c t o r i n v e s t i g a t e d p rev ious ly d e a l t w i t h

a i d s i n ach iev ing accu ra t e and e f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , The

21~. W. Edmiston and C. N. Ginser ich. "The R e l a t i o n of Factors of Eng l i sh Usage t o ~ o m ~ o s i ~ i o n , ~ ~ ' ~ o u r n a l of Educational Re search , XCXICVI ( ~ e c e m b e r , 1 9 4 - m - 2 7 1 .

23

instructor was given only a few papers to mark, this method is

to some degree invalid. For example, the evaluator might be

given only three papers which might possibly be the three

highest ranking papers in the entire group. Yet, knowing of

no lower ranking papers, the marker might rate the three

highest ones as (1), (2), and (3) \'lhen in reality, if rated

with the entire group, the papers should have all received

ratings of (1). The discrepancy lies in the fact that the

evaluator would be deprived of the all-important normative

reference by which to determine ratings of (1), (2), or (3)

and, therefore, be compelled to resort to so-called standards

of his own. Such standards are known to differ widely from

marker to lrerker.

Edmiston and Gingerich made a study similar to this

one, however, in which the results of their evaluation were

much the same as those in this study; yet their papers were

marked by the Huddleson Typical Composition Scale by one21evaluator. Perhaps then the discrepancy involved when

several evaluators are used was not as great in this case as

one might be inclined to thiwc.

The fourth factor investigated previously dealt l"ith

aids in achieving accurate and effective evaluation. The

21R• vI. Edmiston and C. N. Gingerich, liThe Relation ofFactors of English Usage to Composition," Journal ofEducational Research, XXArvI (December, 1942), 269-271.

i n s t r u c t o r was given only a few papers t o mark, t h i s method i s

t o some degree inva l id . For example, the evalua tor might be

given only t h r e e papers t ~ h i c h might possibly be t h e t h r e e

highest ranking papers i n the e n t i r e group. Yet, knowing of

no lower ranking papers, the marker might r a t e the t h r e e

highest ones a s (I), ( 2 1 , and (3) when i n r e a l i t y , i f r a t e d

with the e n t i r e group, t h e papers should have a l l received

ra t ings of (1). The discrepancy l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t the

evaluator would be deprived of t h e al l - important normative

reference by which t o determine r a t i n g s of ( I ) , (21, o r (3)

and, the re fo re , be compelled t o re-sort t o so-cal led s tandards

of h i s own. Such standards a r e known t o d i f f e r widely from

marker t o marker.

Edmiston and Gingerich made a study similar t o t h i s

one, however, i n which the r e s u l t s of t h e i r eva lua t ion were

much the same a s those i n t h i s study; ye t t h e i r papers were

marlred by t h e Huddleson Typical Composition Scale by one

evaluator. 21 Perhaps then t h e discrepancy involved when

several eva lua to r s a re used was not a s g rea t i n t h i s case as

one might be i n c l i n e d t o think.

The f o u r t h f a c t o r inves t iga ted previously d e a l t with

a i d s i n achieving accurate and e f f e c t i v e evalua t ion . The

21R. W . Edmiston 2nd C. N. Ginaerich. "The Relat ion of Factors of English Usage t o ~ o m p o s i E i o n , ~ ' ~ o u r n a l of Educational Research, XCXVI (December, l 9 G T 2 q - 2 7 1 .

23

instructor was given only a few papers to mark, this method is

to some degree invalid. For example, the evaluator might be

given only three papers which might possibly be the three

highest ranking papers in the entire group. Yet, knowing of

no lower ranking papers, the marker might rate the three

highest ones as (1), (2), and (3) when in reality, if rated

with the entire group, the papers should have all received

ratings of (1). The discrepancy lies in the fact that the

evaluator would be deprived of the all-important normative

reference by which to determine ratings of (1), (2), or (3)

and, therefore, be compelled to resort to so-called standards

of his own. Such standards are known to differ widely from

marker to marker.

Edmiston and Gingerich made a study similar to this

one, however, in which the results of their evaluation were

much the same as those in this study; yet their papers were

marked by the Huddleson Typical Composition Scale by one21evaluator. Perhaps then the discrepancy involved when

several evaluators are used was not as great in this case as

one might be inclined to thiruc.

The fourth factor investigated previously dealt with

aids in achieving accurate and effective evaluation. The

21R• Ttl. Edmiston and C. N. Gingerich, llThe Relation ofFactors of English Usage to Composition," Journal ofEducational Researcq, XXA7I (December, 1942), 2b9-27l.

Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College plan f u l f i l l e d all t h e

c r i t e r i a l i s t e d except the one s t a t i n g t h a t f o r t h e sake of

r e l i a b i l i t y t h e s tudents should be ra t ed on a t l e a s t two

compositions deal ing with d i f f e r e n t topics . Because of t h e

experimental na ture of t h i s program, the s tuden t s were only

required t o w r i t e one composition ins tead of two.

Probably t h e most important of the a i d s l i s t e d i s t h e

requirement t h a t a l l evaluat ions be based on one s e t of

c r i t e r i a i f they a r e t o be comparable. Th i s c r i t e r i o n ,

though t h e sinlplest minimum, was s e t up f o r the sophomore

papers i n the composition-rating cha r t .

By t h i s inves t iga t ion of the f a c t o r s involved i n

adequate composition evaluat ion, i t has been shown t h a t t h e

evaluation of t h e sophomore w r i t t e n compositions a t Southwest

Texas S t a t e Teachers College was not e n t i r e l y adequate, A s

long as any evalua t ion i s sub jec t ive , the re w i l l be

discrepancy t o some degree,

24

Southwest Texas State Teachers College plan fulfilled all the

criteria listed except the one stating that for the sake of

reliability the students should be rated on at least two

compositions dealing with different topics. Because of the

experimental nature of this program, the students were only

required to write one composition instead of two.

Probably the most important of the aids listed is the

requirement that all evaluations be based on one set of

criteria if they are to be comparable. This criterion,

though the simplest minimu~, was set up for the sophomore

papers in the composition-rating chart.

By this investigation of the factors involved in

adequate composition evaluation, it has been shown that the

evaluation of the sophomore written compositions at Southwest

Texas state Teachers College was not entirely adequate. As

long as any evaluation is subjective, there will be

discrepancy to some degree.

CHAPTER I1

TREATI~BPJT OF THE DATA

Description of t h e Data

This study deals with the re la t ionsh ips of two s e t s of

da ta , namely, (1) a group of wr i t t en compositions and (2 ) a

group of Cooperative English Test C2, Form Y papers. The

Cooperative English Test includes the following pa r t s :

I . Reading Comprehension

A. Vocabulary

13. Reading

11. Mechanics of Expression

A . Grammatical Usage

B. Punctuation and Cap i ta l i za t ion

C. Spelling

111. Effect iveness of Expression

A . Sentence St ruc ture and S ty le

B. Active Vocabulary

C . Organization

The s tudents were asked t o wr i t e t h e i r compositions on

any subject deal ing with t h e i r major f i e l d or" study. Both

s e t s of da ta were contributed by t he same group of sophomores

who were enro l l ed a t Southwest Texas S t a t e Teachers College

during t h e spr ing semester of 1951.

CHAPTER II

TREAT~ENT OF THE DATA

Description of the Data

This study deals vlith the relationships of two sets of

data, namely, (1) a group of written compositions and (2) a

group of Cooperative English Test C2 , Form Y papers. The

Cooperative English Test includes the following parts:

I. Reading Comprehension

A. Vocabulary

B. Reading

II. Mechanics of Expression

A. Grawnatical Usage

B. Punctuation and Capitalization

C. Spelling

III. Effectiveness of Expression

A. Sentence structure and Style

B. Active Vocabulary

C. Organization

The students were asked to write their compositions on

any subject dealing \'Ti th their major field of study. Both

sets of data were contributed by the same group of sophomores

who were enrolled at Southwest Texas state Teachers College

during the spring semester of 1951.

blethods Used -- i n Comparing the Data

The s e t s of papers were compared pr imari ly by c o r r e l a t i o n

c o e f f i c i e n t s found by the app l i ca t ion of the Pearson product-

moment method. Probable e r r o r s of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s

were determined by t h e use of t h e formula f o r t h e probable

e r r o r of l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n (See Appendix) . A l l t e s t scores were converted from t h e raw scores t o

T-scores a s they are previously defined i n t h i s study. The

conversion of t h e o r i g i n a l composiJ~lon r a t i n g s given t o t h e

compositions t o a more convenient sca le has been discussed

i n another s e c t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , need not be t r e a t e d here.

Resul t s of Computations

A l l r e l a t i o n s h i p s were der ived by computing c o r r e l a t i o n

c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r va r ious p a r t s and combinations of par t s of

t h e two s e t s of o r i g i n a l da ta . A s a means t o e s t ab l i sh ing

val- idi tg , t h e marks which t h e s tudents rece ived i n t h e i r

freshman Engl ish courses , which d e a l t pr imar i ly with reading

and w r i t i n g , were a l s o c o r r e l a t e d wi th a p a r t of the

o r i g i n a l da ta .

Cornposition Ratings a s C r i t e r i a

The use of the composition r a t i n g s as c r i t e r i a t o

determifie whether the s tudent s knowledge of w r i t t e n

26

Methods Used in Comparing the Data

The sets of papers were compared primarily by correlation

coefficients found by the application of the Pearson product­

moment method. Probable errors of the correlation coefficients

were determined by the use of the formula for the probable

error of linear correlation (See Appendix).

All test scores were converted from the raw scores to

T-scores as they are previously defined in this study. The

conversion of the original composition ratings given to the

compositions to a more convenient scale has been discussed

in another section and, therefore, need not be treated here.

Results of Computatio4&

All relationships were derived by computing correlation

coefficients for various parts and combinations of parts of

the two sets of original data. As a means to establishing

validity, the marks it/hich the students received in their

freshman English courses, vn1ich dealt primarily with reading

and writing, were also correlated with a part of the

original data.

Composition Ratings as Criteria

The use of the composition ratings as criteria to

determine i;lhether the student t s l{l1m'l1edge of iHitten

composition i s adequate was s t a t e d a s a condi t ion i n t h e

statement of t h e problem of t h i s study. The quest ion arose

a s t o whether t h i s assumption was advisable and well-founded,

The best measure ~ t n i c h was ava i l ab le t o determine t h i s

v a l i d i t y was t h e marks received by these sophomore s tudents

i n t h e i r freshman English work.

A s a means t o determining the v a l i d i t y of t h e composition

ra t ings then, t h e ratings were co r re la t ed with t h e course

marks. This c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was Tound t o be .49 ! .04.

Although not exceedingly high, t h e c o e f f i c i e n t i s s i g n i f i c a n t ;

and it was judged advisable t o use t h e composition r a t i n g s

a s c r i t e r i a , but with d i sc re t ion . The c o e f f i c i e n t ' s value i s

ra i sed somewhat i f we consider (1) t h a t one school year had

elapsed between t h e time the course grades were given and the

time t h a t the compositions were wr i t t en , (2 ) t h a t s ince t h e r e

i s only one composition from each student t h i s one e f f o r t may

not coincide wi th the s tuden t ' s t o t a l wr i t ing a b i l i t y , and

(3) t h a t although the freshman English courses teach pr imar i ly

reading and w r i t i n g , other f a c t o r s a re considered by the

ins t ruc to r i n teaching the c l a s s and i n assigning t h e marks. 1

The c o r r e l a t i o n coe f f i c i en t f o r the scores on t h e

standardized t e s t , Total English, and the s tuden t s ' grades was

found t o be .58 h .dt.

l pau l B. Diederich, "The l4easuremeiit of S l r i l l i n Writing, t~ School Review, LIV (December, 1946), 588. ---

27

composition is adequate was stated as a condition in the

statement of the problem of this study. The question arose

as to whether this assumption was advisable and well-foundedo

The best measure which was available to determine this

validity was the marks received by these sophomore students

in their freshman English vlOrk.

As a means to determining the validity of the composition

ratings then, the ratj.ngs 'I.-lere correlated \-li th the course

marks. This correlation coefficient was found to be .49 ±.04.

Although not exceedingly high, the coefficient is significant;

and it was judged advisable to use the composition ratings

as criteria, but with discretion. The coefficient's value is

raised somewhat if we consider (1) that one school year had

elapsed between the time the course grades were given and the

time that the compositions were written, (2) that since there

is only one composition from each student this one effort may

not coincide with the student's total writing ability, and

(3) that although the freshman English courses teach primarily

reading and writing, other factors are considered by the

instructor in teaching the class and in assigning the marks. l

The correlation coefficient for the scores on the

standardized test, Total English, and the students' grades vTaS

found to be .58 ±.OLI-.

Ipaul B. Diederich, liThe Measurement of Skill in '(.\Triting, II

School Review, LIV (December, 1946), 588.

A s a means t o e s t a b l i s h i n g normal i ty of t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t ,

i t may be no ted t h a t F le tcher and H i l d r e t h found a c o r r e l a t i o n

of .48 between sco re s on t h e Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t x Eng l i sh

Placement T e s t and i n s t r u c t o r s r a t i n g s of s t u d e n t s i n Eng l i sh 2

c l a s s e s a t Ohio S t a t e Univers i ty .

R e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e Two S e t s of Data

Following t h i s i n i t i a l computation, t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s

of c o r r e l a t i o n were computed f o r p a i r s of d a t a as shown i n

Table 111.

The t h r e e most s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s Irere t h o s e

of E f f ec t iveness of Expression, Reading Comprehension, and

T o t a l Engl ish . The sca t te rgrams given i n Tables IV-X, trhich

fo l low on pages t h i r t y through t h i r t y - s i x , show a more

d e t a i l e d p i c t u r e of t he se r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

rank M. F l e t c h e r and W. H. Hi ld re th . t~Eva lua t ion of an - - -

Eng l i sh Placement T e s t , I f Educa t iona l ~ e s e a r c h E l l e t i n , XXVIII (January, 19491, 7-17.

28

As a means to establishing normality of this coefficient,

it may be noted that Fletcher and Hildreth found a correlation

of .48 between scores on the Ohio State University English

Placement Test and instructors' ratings of students in English2

classes at Ohio State University.

Relationships between the Two Sets of Data

Following this initial computation, the coefficients

of correlation were computed for pairs of data as shown in

Table III.

The three most significant coefficients were those

of Effectiveness of Expression, Reading Comprehension, and

Total English. The scattergrams given in Tables IV-X, l,·rhich

follow on pages thirty through thirty-six, show a more

detailed picture of these relationships.

2Frank M. Fletcher and v.J. H. Hildreth, "Evaluation of anEnglish Placement Test," Educational Research BUlletin,XXVIII (January, 1949), 7-17.

TABLE I11

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR WRITTEN COMPOSITZO~JS AND COOPERATIVE ENGLISH TESTS

Mechanics of Expression Composition Ratings .27 ! .05

Effectiveness of Expression composition Ratings -39 k a 0 5

Reading Vocabulary Composition Ratings .30 k .05

Reading Speed Composition Ratings .27 ! .05

Reading Comprehension Composition Ratings .36 ! .05

Total Reading Composition Ratings . 3 l f .05

Total English Composition Ratings .38 !. .,OF

Mechanics of Expression plus

Effectiveness of Expression Composition Ratings .32 ? .05

-- - - -- -

TABLE III

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR WRITTEN COMPOSITIONSA~ID COOPERATIVE ENGLISH TESTS

29

x y r P.E· r

Mechanics of Expression Composition Ratings .27 t.05

Effectiveness of Expression Composition Ratings .39 ±.05

Reading Vocabulary Composition Ratings .30 J.-.05

Reading Speed Composition Ratings 027 t.05

Reading Comprehension Composition Ratings .. 36 ! .05

Total Reading Composition Ratings .31 ! .05

Total English Composition Ratings .38 ~o05

Mechanics of ExpressionplUS .J.Effectiveness of Expression Composition Ratings .32 _.05

TABLE IV

EFFECTIVENESS OF I X P ~ S S I O N (ACTUAL I\NMBERS ) *

Composition Number of Students i n Divisions of 2?$ Ratings 0-2)-+.$ 25$-+.9$ 50%- 7Lr-$ 7 5%-9 9$ Total

Total 39 39 39 4.0

-8-

Figures given i n terms of ac tua l number of students.

TABLE IV

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPRESSION (ACTUAL NUMBERS) *

30

Composition Number of Students in Divisions of 25%Ratings 0-24% 25%-49% 50%-7L/-% 75%-99% Total

6 9 14- 18 24- 65

5 10 10 16 11 47

4 1 1 1 3

3 11 10 4 2 27

2 1 1

1 7 3 1 11

0 1 2 3

Total 39 39 39 40 157

*Figures given in terms of actual number of students.

TABLE V

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPRESSION (PERCENTAGES) *

Composition Percentage of Students in Divisions of 25% Ratings 0-24b 25$-49$ 50%- 74% 75$-99$ Total

Total 100 .O 100.0 100,O 100.0 100,O

* Figures given in terms of percentage of students,

TABLE V

*EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPRESSION (PERCENTAGES)

31

Composition Percentage of Students in Divisions of 25%Ratings 0-2~% 25%-~9% 50%-7~% 75%-99% Total

6 23.1 35.9 ~6.2 60.0 LI-1.6

5 25.6 25.6 ~1.0 27.5 29.9

~ 2.6 2 06 205 1.9

3 28.2 25.6 10.2 5.0 17.1

2 2.5 .6

1 17.9 7.7 2 0 5 7.0

0 2.6 5.2 1,,9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,,0

* . given in terms of percentage of students.Flgures

TABLE V I

FBADING COl4PWHEITSION (ACTUAL NUMBERS)*

Number of Students i n Divisions of 292 Com~osition

0 3 3

Tota l 39 39 39 40 1 57

=k Figures given i n terms of ac tua l number of s tudents .

TABLE VI

READING COMPREHENSION (ACTUAL NUMBERS)*

32

Number of Students in Divisions of 25%Composition

Ratings 0-24% 25%-49% 50%-74% 75%-9910 Total

6 9 14 16 26 65

5 14 11 15 7 Y-7

4 2 1 3

3 9 7 8 3 27

2 1 1

1 4 5 2 11

0 3 3

Total 39 39 39 40 157

*Figures given in terms of actual number of students.

TABLE VII

READING COMPREHENSION (PERCENTAGES) *

Composition Percentage of Students i n Divisions of 2%;

Rating s 0 - 247; 25$-4-9$ 50%-74$ 75$-99$ Total

Total 100.0 100 , 0 100 .O 100.0 100.0

* Figures given i n terms of percentage of students.

TABLE VII

READING COHPREHENSION (PERCENTAGES) *

33

c ·t· Percentage of Students in Divisions of 25%omposl. l.onRatings 0-24% 25%-49% 50%-74-% 75%-99% Total

6 23.1 35.9 41.0 65.0 4-1.6

5 35.9 28.2 38.5 17.5 2909

4- 502 2.5 1.9

3 23.1 17.9 20.5 7.5 17.1

2 2.5 .6

1 10.3 12.8 500 7.0

0 7.6 1.9

Total 100.0 10000 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Figures given in terms of percentage of students.

TABLE V I L I

Composition Number of Students i n Divisions of 258 Ratings 0-2k$ 25$-49$ 50$-747i? 7 5$-99$ Tot a1

T o t a l 39 39 39 40 1 5-7 -- * Figures given i n terms of a c tua l number of students.

TABLE VIII

TOTAL ENGLISH (ACTUAL NUMBERS)*

Composition Number of Students in Divisf3ns of 25%Ratings 0-24% 25%-49% 50%-7410 75%-99~& Total

6 6 17 16 26 65

5 11 13 16 7 47

4 1 1 1 3

3 14 l;- 5 4 27

2 1 1

1 7 2 1 1 11

0 1 2 3

Total 39 39 39 40 157

* . given in terms of actual number of students.Flgures

T A B U IX

TOTAL ENGLISH (PERCENTAGES) *

Percentage of Students i n Divisions of 2%; Composition - Ratings 0-24% 2 57: -49% 50$-74$ 75$-99% Total

Total l00,O 100.0 100,O 100,O 100,O P

--*- - * Figures given in terms of percenkage of s tudents ,

TABLE IX

TOTAL ENGLISH CPERCENTAGES)*

35

Percentage of Students in Divisions of 25~gComposition

0-241b 25Jb-49% 50%-74% 75~b-99%Ratings Total

6 15.4 43,,6 41.0 65.0 41.6

5 28.3 33,,3 41.0 17.5 29.9

4- 2.6 2.6 2.5 1.9

3 35.9 10.3 12,,8 10.0 17.1

2 2.5 .6

1 .17.9 5.1 2.6 2.5 7.0

0 2.5 5.1 1.9- -

Total 100.0 100.0 100,,0 100.0 100.0

*Figures given in terms of percentage of students.

TABLE X 1

- (X) Effectiveness of Expression

TABLE X

CORP~LATION OF COfWOSITION RATINGS A~ID EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPRESSION

(X) Effectiveness of Expression

21- 2~- 27- 30- 33- 36- 39- 42- 45- 48- 51- 54- 57- 60- 63- 66- 69- 72- 75- f y dy fydy f ydy2

23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77tilD.D 6 1 1 2 4 8 5 4 6 8 6 6 7 4 1 2 65 -1-2 130 260s::::

.r!5 1 3 2 2 4 6 4 5 6 47 ~1 47 47.p 3 7 3 1

cd(Yi 4 1 1 1 3 0

r-..l=:3 3 3 4 4- 5 2:>-J 0 3 1 1 1 27 -1 -27 27"""-.r!

~ 2 1 1 -2 -2 4Ulo 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 -3 -33 99P...E 0 1 2 3 -4 -12 4800

.t:' 1 5 7 9 12 17 18 15 10 17 11 13 8 11 1 2 157 103 485.Lxdx -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4- -3 -2 -1 0 -1-1 ~2 ~3 ~l+ +5 +6 +7 +8 +9

fxdx -9 -30 -35 -36 -36 -34 -18 10 34- 33 52 40 66 8 18 63

fxdx2 81 180 175 IlW 108 68 18 10 68 99 208 200 396 64 162 1981

fxydy +1 +2 -11 -3 +1 +13 +1 ~ +14 +22 ~13 +12 +15 +13 +2 +4 103

fxydxdy-9 -12 55 12 -3 -26 -1 14 lW 39 ~8 75 78 16 36 366

r = .39 P.E. r ': .05= ,

W0'

Inves t iga t ion of Causes

Par t of t h e purpose of t h i s study was t o discover which

s ec t i on or sec t ions of the standardized t e s t , i f any, could

be most e f f e c t i v e l y used as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r t he composition-

wr i t i ng program. Since the difference between any two of the

co r r e l a t i on c o e f f i c i e n t s i s l e s s than t h e swa of t h r ee probable

e r r o r s (015 i n t h i s case) , t h e d i f ferences could have occurred

by chance; and by t h i s path of reasoning one might then assume

t h a t no one p a r t has a c lose r r e l a t i on t o t h e composition

r a t i n g s than does any other. Since the c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e

r e l a t i v e l y small , it might a l s o be assumed t h a t t he two s e t s

of da ta have l i t t l e i n cormon. However, s i nce t h i s i s an

exploratory inves t iga t ion , a l l of the d a t a being r a t h e r l imi ted ,

t h e ~ ~ r r i t e r has assumed the da t a t o be s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o

warrant t he i nves t i ga t i on of possible causes and r e s u l t s of

t h e differences which were found.

I n Table 111, page twenty-nine, i t was shot~n t h a t the

most s i gn i f i c an t coe f f i c i en t of c o r r e l a t i o n of indiv idual

t e s t pa r t s and t h e composition r a t i ngs w a s t h a t of t h e t e s t

on Effect iveness of Expression which inc ludes (1) sentence

s t r uc tu r e and s t y l e , ( 2 ) a c t i v e vocabulary, and (3) organiza-

t i o n , of which sentence s t r uc tu r e and organiza t ion a r e l i s t e d

s p e c i f i c a l l y on t h e chart used i n r a t i n g t h e compositions

37

Investigation of Causes

Part of the purpose of this study was to discover which

section or sections of the standardized test, if any, could

be most effectively used as a substitute for the composition­

writing program. Since the difference between any two of the

correlation coefficients is less than the sum of three probable

errors (015 in this case), the differences could have occurred

by chance; and by this path of reasoning one might then assume

that no one part has a closer relation to the composition

ratings than does any other. Since the coefficients are

relatively small, it might also be assumed that the two sets

of data have little in cornmon. However, since this is an

exploratory investigation, all of the data being rather limited,

the ~Triter has assumed the data to be significant enough to

warrant the investigation of possible causes and results of

the differences which were found.

In Table III, page twenty-nine, it was shown that the

most significant coefficient of correlation of individual

test parts and the composition ratings was that of the test

on Effectiveness of Expression which includes (1) sentence

structure and style, (2) active vocabulary, and (3) organiza­

tion, of which sentence structure and organization are listed

specifically on the chart used in rating the compositions

o r i g i n a l l y . The l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t of t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s were

t h o s e of Reading Speed (.27) and Plechanics of Express ion ( . 27 ) ,

Speed probably had l i t t l e d i r e c t e f f e c t on t h e composition

r a t i n g s s ince t h e s tuden t s strere given ample t ime--t~ro hours--to

w r i t e t h e composit ions; but t h e l\lechanics of Express ion inc ludes

grammatical usage, punc tua t ion and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , and s p e l l i n g ,

a11 of which a r e l i s t e d d i r e c t l y on t h e composi t ion-ra t ing

c h a r t . Perhaps, t hen , n e i t h e r of t h e f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

d i s c u s s e d could be des igna ted as t h e cause of t h e d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s s i n c e t h e p a r t s from t h e

t e s t s wi th t h e lowest c o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n a r e

s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d on t h e composi t ion-ra t ing c h a r t as w e l l

as t h e p a r t s from t h e t e s t v~h ich y ie lded the h ighes t co r r e l a -

t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t v ~ h e i ~ compared wi th t h e composi t ion r a t i n g s .

The on ly two p a r t s remaining which were no t d i r e c t l y

L i s t e d on t h e composi t ion-ra t ing cha r t were a c t i v e vocabulary

and sentence s t y l e , which were both inc luded i n t h e t e s t on

E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Expression, The ques t ion a r o s e t h e n as t o

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of knowledge of vocabulary o r sentence s t y l e

be ing t h e ch ie f cause f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e , The p o s s i b i l i t y

t h a t knowledge of vocabulary rniglit Ise tlie r ~ 2 s 0 1 1 shotred l i t t l e

v a l i d i t y when compared with t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r

t h e Vocabulary t e s t and t h e composition r a t i n g s which was .SO.

The a b i l i t y t o recognize and t o use good s e n t e n c e s t y l e was

38

originally. The least significant of the coefficients were

those of Reading Speed (.27) and Mechanics of Expression (.27).

Speed probably had little direct effect on the composition

ratings since the students were given ample time--two hours--to

write the compositions; but the Mechanics of Expression includes

grammatical usage, punctuation and capitalization, and spelling,

all of which are listed directly on the composition-rating

chart. Perhaps, then, neither of the five characteristics

discussed could be designated as the cause of the difference

between the correlation coefficients since the parts from the

tests with the lowest coefficients of correlation are

specifically listed on the composition-rating chart as well

as the parts from the test vU1ich yielded the highest correla­

tion coefficient when compared with the composition ratings.

The only two parts remaining which were not directly

listed on the composition-rating chart were active vocabulary

and sentence style, which were both included in the test on

Effectiveness of Expression. The question arose then as to

the possibility of knowledge of vocabulary or sentence style

being the chief cause for the difference o The possibility

that knowledge of vocabulary might be the reason showed little

validity when compared with the correlation coefficient for

the Vocabulary test and the composition ratings which was .30.

The ability to recognize and to use good sentence style was

t h e only other s p e c i f i c a l t e r n a t i v e . There were no s p e c i f i c

s c o r e s r e l a t i n g only t o sentence s t y l e , so t h e co r re la t ion of

t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and t h e composition r a t i n g s could not be

determined. The w r i t e r only suggests t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a s

a poss ib le key t o t h e cause f o r the d i f ference i n t h e

c o e f f i c i e n t s ign i f i cance , s ince it has not a s ye t been proved

f a l s e .

The c o e f f i c i e n t of co r re la t ion between t h e composition

r a t i n g s and t h e t e s t on Reading Comprehension ( .36) i s the

n e x t most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r , t h a t i s , excluding t h e Tota l

Eng l i sh (.38) because it inc ludes a l l p a r t s of the standardized

t e s t and would not be spec i f i c . Reading Comprehension i s not

a s i n g l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and cannot be c l a s s i f i e d a s subject

ma t t e r . A b i l i t y i n reading comprehension r e s t s on many

f a c t o r s ; i t i s a complex funct ion which requ i res seve ra l s k i l l s , 3 a b i l i t i e s , and a t t i t u d e s . From the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ,

i t i s noted t h a t some of these s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , and

a t t i t u d e s are requi red f o r w r i t i n g conposi t ions. It seems

a l s o t h a t these s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , and a t t i t u d e s a re some

o t h e r than those measured by the t e s t s on Mechanics of

Expression or Effec t iveness of Expression. Perhaps, a l s o , the

3 Marjorie Seddon Johnson, t fFactors i n Reading Comprehen- s j o n , ~ ~ Educational Administration g& Supervision, XXPJ (November, 19491, 38.5-406.

39

the only other specific alternative. There were no specific

scores relating only to sentence style, so the correlation of

this characteristic and the composition ratings could not be

determined. The l1riter only suggests this characteristic as

a possible key to the cause for the difference in the

coefficient significance, since it has not as yet been proved

false.

The coefficient of correlation betvreen the composition

ratings and the test on Reading Comprehension (.36) is the

next most significant factor, that is, excluding the Total

English (.38) because it includes all parts of the standardized

test and would not be specific. Reading Comprehension is not

a single characteristic and cannot be classified as subject

matter. Ability in reading comprehension rests on many

factors; it is a complex function which requires several skills,

abilities, and attitudes.3 From the correlation coefficient,

it is noted that some of these skills, abilities, and

attitudes are required for writing compositions. It seems

also that these skills, abilities, and attitudes are some

other than those measured by the tests on Mechanics of

Expression or Effectiveness of Expression. Perhaps, also, the

3Harjorie Seddon Johnson, "Factors in Reading Comprehen­sion," Educational Administration and SUJ?ervision, :xxxv(November, 1949), 385-406.

t e s t on Effec t iveness of Expression measures more than jus t

t h e concrete s k i l l s l i s t e d i n t h e contents; perhaps it

measures some of t h e same f a c t o r s which are taken i n t o

cons idera t ion i n reading comprehension, s ince the co r r e l a t i on

c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t he composition ra t ings and t he t e s t on

Ef fec t iveness of Expression i s alrnost i d e n t i f i c a l wit11 the

c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e composition r a t i ngs and t h e t e s t on

Reading Comprehension,

The other d i f fe rences found between t h e cor re la t ion

c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e t oo i n s ign i f i c an t t o d iscuss except i n a

v e r y l imi ted manner, since they d i f f e r by no t more than one

probable e r ro r . They w i l l not be deal t wi th here.

The Cutoff Point

One of the purposes of t h i s study was t o e s t ab l i sh a cut -

off point on t h e standardized t e s t score-scale t o mark the

adequacy of t he sophomore s tuden t s ' a b i l i t y t o do wr i t t en

composition. According t o t h e composition-rating s ca l e , the

cu to f f poinl; which was used by the English department f a l l s 4

between r a t i ngs 2 and 3. This i s shown i n Table 11, page

4 Rating numbers enclosed i n parentheses r e f e r t o o r i g ina l r a t i n g s given by t h e English department. Those not enclosed i n parentheses r e f e r t o the converted r a t i n g derived f o r t he purposes of t h i s s tudy,

40

test on Effectiveness of Expression measures more than just

the concrete skills listed in the contents; perhaps it

measures some of the same factors which are taken into

consideration in reading comprehension, since the correlation

coefficient for the composition ratings and the test on

Effectiveness of Expression is almost identifical with the

coefficient for the composition ratings and the test on

Reading Comprehension.

The other differences found between the correlation

coefficients are too insignificant to discuss except in a

very limited manner, since they differ by not more than one

probable error. They will not be dealt with here.

The Cutoff Point

One of the purposes of this study was to establish a cut-

off point on the standardized test score-scale to mark the

adequacy of the sophomore students· ability to do written

composition. According to the composition-rating scale, the

cutoff point which was used by the English department falls

between ratings 2 and 3.4 This is shown in Table II, page

4Rating numbers enclosed in parentheses refer to originalratings given by the English department. Those not enclosedin parentheses refer to the converted rating derived for thepurposes of this study.

e igh teen . The department used t h e system whereby any student

whose paper was given a s ingle t o t a l grade of (3) i n any

ra t ing combination was advised t o do remedial work. Therefore,

any student whose paper received ra t ing combinations of (2),

(2.1, and (3) ; ( 3 ) and (2); or (3) and (3) f e l l below t h i s cut-

o f f point . On t h e composition-rating sca le , derived for

more convenience i n t h i s study, t h i s would include r a t i ngs of

0, 1, and 2.

The r e l a t i onsh ip of t h e standardized tes ts t o t h i s cut-

off point can be noted by reference t o Tables IV-X on pages

t h i r t y through t h i r t y - s i x . The t e s t on Effec t iveness of

Expression y ie lded t he highest corre la t ion coe f f i c i en t when

compared with t h e compositiol~ r a t i ngs , so i t s re la t ionsh ip

woul-d be the most s i gn i f i c an t . By cut t ing o f f papers f o r

remedia l work wi th composition r a t i ngs of 0 , 1, o r 2, as was

done i n the o r i g i n a l program, i t i s noted t h a t f i f t e e n papers

are included i n t h i s group; but th ree of those l i e above the

median on the t e s t score-scale. There i s no inten1:ion here

t o imply t ha t t h e composition-rating r e s u l t s should be used

as a c r i t e r i o n f o r judging the adequacy of the standardized

ob j ec t i ve t e s t used. Indeed, t he opposite may be t rue . Yet

because of the low cor re la t ion of the two s e t s of data , it

i s probably not advisable t o e s t ab l i sh a cutoff point on

e i t h e r of the s c a l e s alone. If t h i s were done, many s tudents

41

eighteen. The department used the system whereby any student

whose paper was given a single total grade of (3) in any

rating combination was advised to do remedial work. Therefore,

any student whose paper received rating combinations of (2),

(2), and (3); (3) and (2); or (3) and (3) fell below this cut­

off point. On the composition-rating scale, derived for

more convenience in this study, this would include ratings of

0, 1, and 2.

The relationship of the standardized tests to this cut­

off point can be noted by reference to Tables IV-X on pages

thirty through thirty-six. The test on Effectiveness of

Expression yielded the highest correlation coefficient when

compared with the composition ratings, so its relationship

would be the most significant. By cutting off papers for

remedial work with composition ratings of 0, 1, or 2, as was

done in the original program, it is noted that fifteen papers

are included in this group; but three of those lie above the

median on the test score-scale. There is no irrtention here

to imply that the composition-rating results should be used

as a criterion for jUdging the adequacy of the standardized

objective test used. Indeed, the opposite may be true. Yet

because of the low correlation of the two sets of data, it

is probably not advisable to establish a cutoff point on

either of the scales alone. If this were done, many students

who were ra ted high on composition tiould be advised t o do

remedia l work because of t h e i r low scores on the standardized

t e s t .

It i s suggested t h a t a combination of t he two s e t s of

d a t a be used i n es tab l i sh ing a cutoff point. Table X, page

t h i r t y - s i x , gives a more complete p ic tu re of the cor re la t ion

of the composition r a t i ngs and the t e s t on Effect iveness of

E:rpression. Approximately t he low twenty-f i v e per cent of

t h e s tudents on t h e composition-rating sca le would l i e wi th in

r a t i n g s of 0 , 1, 2, and 3, and the low twenty-five per cent

o n t he t e s t score-scale would inc lude raw scores of forty-two

a n d below. I f those s tudents who f e l l i n t he 1mr ttrenty-five

per cent on both sca les were required t o do remedial work,

t h e group would inc lude approximately seventeen s tudents or

t e n per cent of t h e e n t i r e 157 s tuden t s , By using both s e t s

o f da ta , the v a l i d i t y of the composition-evaluating program

i s increased and the measure i s more valuable,

\'lho viere rated high on composition v10uld be advised to do

remedial l'lork because of their 10v1 scores on the standardized

test.

It is suggested that a combination of the two sets of

data be used in establishing a cutoff point. Table X, page

thirty-six, gives a more complete picture of the correlation

of the composition ratings and the test on Effectiveness of

EJcpression. Approximately the low twenty-five per cent of

the students on the composition-rating scale would lie within

ratings of 0, 1, 2, and 3, and the low twenty-five per cent

on the test score-scale would include raw scores of forty-two

and below. If those students who fell in the 1~1 twenty-five

per cent on both scales were required to do remedial work,

the group would include approximately seventeen students or

ten per cent of the entire 157 students. By using both sets

of data, the validity of the composition-evaluating program

is increased and the measure is more valuable.

It was t h e purpose of t h i s s tudy t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y of s u b s t i t u t i n g s t u d e n t s t s c o r e s on a s tandardized

Engl i sh t e s t f o r r a t i n g s on w r i t t e n composition as a means

of eva lua t ing t h e s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o do w r i t t e n composition,

The i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s made by comparing r a t i n g s given

sophomores on w r i t t e n col;lpositions with performance scores

of t hese s t u d e n t s on a s tandard ized Exgl i sh t e s t which Was

adminis tered t o them during t h e spr ing semester of 1951, These

comparisons were made by c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e two s e t s of d a t a ,

w i t h a follow-up of observa t ions by t h e w r i t e r .

A l l of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f z i c i e n t s of s epa ra t e p a r t s

of t h e s tandard ized t e s t w i th t h e composition r a t i n g s f e l l

between ,27f .05 and .39$.05. These c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e no t h igh ly

s i g n i f i c a n t , and t h e w r i t e r concludes t h a t it would no t be

advisab le t o subs t i t u ' t e t h e s tandard ized t e s t scores f o r t h e

composition r a t i n g s because t h e community f a c t o r between t h e

two measuring t echn iques appears t o be too small. However,

t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e t o some degree s i g n i f i c a n t ;

hence, v a l i d i t y supe r io r t o e i t h e r measuring technique t ~ o u l d

be obtained i f t h e two were combined, t he reby segrega t ing

s tuden t s f o r remedia l work who ranired i n tlie low s e c t i o n of

both s e t s of data.

CHAPTER III

SUl~MRY AvID CONCLUSIONS

It was the purpose of this study to investigate the

possibility of sUbstituting students' scores on a standardized

English test for ratings on written composition as a means

of evaluating the students' ability to do written composition.

The investigation was made by comparing ratings given

sophomores on written compositions with performance scores

of these students on a standardized English test which was

administered to them during the spring semester of 19510 These

comparisons were made by correlation of the two sets of data,

with a follow-up of observations by the writer.

All of the correlation coefficients of separate parts

of the standardized test with the composition ratings fell

between .27 t .05 and .39!.05. These coefficients are not highly

significant, and the writer concludes that it would not be

advisable to substitute the standardized test scores for the

composition ratings because the community factor between the

two measuring techniques appears to be too small. However,

the correlation coefficients are to some degree significant;

hence, validity superior to either measuring technique would

be obtained if the two were combined, thereby segregating

students for remedial work who ranked in the low section of

both sets of data.

APPENDIX

1. Pear son Product -Moment Formula:

2. Probable E r r o r for Linear Correlation Formula:

FORMULAE

l. Pearson Product-Moment Formula:

fxydxdy -Ctxdx ) (fyCX)

Nr =

-GXd/ -

(fx~x)2JLfydy2 - (fy~y)2J

2. Probable Error for Linear Correlation Formula:

45

PoE.r

--

STANDARLIIZED TEST SCORZS* AND COI~IPOSITIOW RATINGS ( STUDENTS ARE INDICATED BY IWI43ERS )

Student s I\Tm b e r

* All s t anda rd i zed t e s t s co re s a r e i n t h e form of T-scores as de f ined i n t h i s s tudy.

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES* AIID COMPOSITION RATINGS(STUDENTS ARE INDICATED BY NUl1ffiERS)

46

m~ ~G-l mo 00 O).r-! 'r-! ~~ ~tI1 ?> m 0

mo OJ til ~ .c: ..-/e.>.r! :>0) cd 0) +J.r! fIl .r! ~ bDr-! M M...d b.D ...d .r!

g~ g~~::J .c: pm .c: m filM.r! ..0 'rl rd ·rl ~ r1.r! r-! .r! ot::

.c~ '(jcd 'dO)'g~

crS'"d cdr-! p.•.-/e.>p. G-l cUe.> cd 0) -l-'cd +'M s+'

~r2G-lCH 0)0 (j)P' m 0 0(1) Oq Oro

Student IS J:r10 ~:> ~u.l ~o 8~ E-1I'il O~

Number (1) (2 ) (3) (4 ) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1 61 67 57 54 47 52 53 62 32 22 28 41f 40 35 24 53 48 43 45 51 50 47 1.1-5 54 62 65 80 65 74 74 61.1- 65 43 41 36 47 43 40 40 6

6 4l+ 42 46 38 39 39 40 57 55 58 66 58 63 62 58 68 42 64 51 57 56 54 53 59 57 55 46 47 50 46 53 5

10 39 44- 48 45 43 45 41 6

11 38 50 59 51 50 53 45 612 52 40 42 44- 49 41.1- 44 613 61 55 47 50 50 48 56 614 37 30 45 49 49 46 34 515 1.1-7 46 55 50 47 50 46 5

16 61 66 58 67 64 63 65 517 65 59 61 60 65 62 62 618 62 77 66 77 69 71 72 619 66 58 59 66 85 71 67 620 39 38 43 38 41 47 38 3

21 32 30 36 37 39 35 27 522 64 73 80 88 72 82 75 623 53 49 53 54 54 53 51

~24 37 54 61 52 52 51.1- 4625 59 42 45 40 39 40 46 6

* are in the form of T-scores asAll standardized test scoresdefined in this study.

Student s Number (1) (2) (3 (4) (5) (6 (7) (8)

Student'sNumber (1) (2) 0) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8 )

26 53 67 58 5lt 54 54 54 627 49 32 48 39 43 41 38 528 43 56 52 41 46 45 46 529 58 49 61 49 52 53 53 530 53 62 55 51 54 53 57 5

31 63 59 53 68 70 64 54 632 44- 46 40 41 45 40 lt2 333 65 58 59 71 58 63 62 634 53 55 58 50 49 51 53 535 64 77 80 78 69 77 75 6

36 65 65 72 71 68 71 69 637 50 67 49 lt5 4l+ 45 51 538 71 63 66 60 58 62 67 639 38 41 49 51 52 50 41 340 53 50 46 44 45 lr4 49 4

41 38 5lt lt5 44 49 45 44 542 55 45 38 44 4l+ 40 lt6 643 47 47 47 57 53 52 48 344 64 52 ·55 57 60 57 58 645 48 38 lt2 39 40 39 38 5

46 60 53 55 59 56 57 57 647 55 53 41 lt9 52 46 57 648 59 49 65 56 50 56 54 349 lt4 37 3lt 38 37 3lt 36 150 37 38 45 40 43 50 38 6

51 lt8 45 48 65 5lt 56 49 552 53 65 68 55 65 63 67 653 54 67 52 48 49 lt8 53 554 53 44 42 35 32 3lt 43 555 36 33 38 35 37 3lt 30 3

Student s Number (1) (2) ( 3 1 (4) (5) 16) (7) (8)

48

Student'sNumber (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8 )

56 48 46 48 52 56 51 48 657 33 34 40 34 35 34 29 058 40 49 65 50 68 60 4-8 659 63 61 55 69 63 63 64 660 51 42 48 47 44 45 45 5

61 63 58 51 50 56 51 58 562 48 45 46 42 1.1-3 42 44 563 59 67 55 54 56 54 57 564- 42 50 73 50 65 63 50 165 58 45 53 49 45 48 51 6

66 47 49 51 47 49 47 46 567 51 45 48 411- 47 45 46 368 52 63 51 69 68 63 60 669 62 51 54 59 58 57 56 570 57 54 59 55 50 54 56 5

71 52 50 49 48 50 48 50 372 51 44 48 42 44 ltl+ 45 673 47 41 42 39 37 38 41 37l..f- 51 61 53 l..f-9 52 51 51+ 575 44 41 48 51 50 48 43 6

76 43 62 51 55 52 52 52 577 43 42 46 35 34 35 38 378 61 52 59 62 l..f-7 56 57 679 59 56 52 4-9 47 48 51+ 580 48 56 72 60 68 66 56 6

81 51 59 73 62 65 66 59 682 47 45 61 48 50 52 46 683 42 46 48 45 43 45 43 084 51 56 53 57 51 53 53 685 41 33 40 45 l.1-7 44 36 6

86 64- 62 48 59 54 53 61 687 58 67 57 62 52 57 36 688 37 39 1.1-0 42 47 48 36 389

~50 39 1.1-4

~438 38

~90 4-2 51 44- 45 46

Student s Number (1) (2) ( 3 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

-"Student's

Number (1) (2) (3) (4-) (5) (6) (7 ) (8 )

91 53 62 59 44 65 66 61 692 4-0 46 55 LI-9 48 4-3 693 69 55 68 58 58 62 64- 494- 39 41 4-8 55 45 48 41 195 37 44 4-9 44- 50 4-6 41 3

96 43 42 51 50 44- 4-7 42 697 59 58 59 55 45 52 57 598 37 4-1 43 41+ 43 42 37 599 70 60 54 54 52 53 62 6

100 57 59 71 79 62 71 62 3

101 54 53 51 4LI- 50 4-7 51 6102 33 1;.0 21+ 36 35 28 29 6103 4-1 50 59 40 44 46 l;l\- 5104 59 4-5 46 49 45 46 50 5105 58 51 4-8 49 4-4 46 52 6

106 39 47 49 41 43 44 1+2 1107 59 54 47 41 4l+ 42 52 6108 65 52 4-8 64 411- 51 57 3109 54 4-9 51 50 1.1-4 47 50 6110 55 67 58 57 56 57 57 5

111 38 38 40 42 47 41 36 6112 54- 59 61 55 47 53 57 3113 37 33 38 37 40 35 32 3114 47 40 53 41 44- 45 42 4-115 61 54 55 50 50 51 56 3

116 47 43 47 4-5 4l+ 4-4 43 6117 32 34 42 28 26 28 30 3118 34 36

~~48 1+4 41 3l.J- 1

119 51 49 64 51 53 51 5120 4-6 35 41 36 26 32 35 1

121 4-1 44 39 41 43 39 40 5122 39 37 36 45 46 1.1-1 36 312~ 63 61

~~ 55 65 57 61 512 37 50 41 39 39 38 3125 67 63 59 67 63 63 66 6

Student s Number (1) ( 2 ) ( 3 (4) ( 5 ) (6) (7) (8)

50

student'sNumber (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8 )

126 42 51 42 44 44 41 43 5127 38 34 40 39 26 32 30 1128 62 61 61 59 58 59 65 6129 54 68 58 65 53 ~

61 6130 38 56 34 47 54 52 5

131 48 65 61 66 68 65 60 6132 62 62 53 55 56 54 60 5133 44 32 45 Y'9 47 46 38 1134 43 411- 1~6 44 43 42 42 6135 44 43 43 44 411- 42 42 3

136 43 39 38 45 44 41 38 1137 49 47 47 55 56 52 49 3138 67 60 53 45 50 48 60 6139 64 66 61 50 58 56 64 3140 52 47 48 51+ 49 50 51 6

141 50 50 47 50 58 51 50 6142 48 47 48 41 35 40 44 0143 58 58 46 49 49 47 54 g144 39 31 43 39 43 40 34145 35 38 42 42 41.1- 41 35 3

146 62 54 46 45 50 46 54 6147 48 51 52 42 43 45 48 5148 63 68 70 56 74 70 69 5149 44 38 38 l.j.l.j. 41 39 38 5150 39 41.1- 42 42 411- 41 40 1

151 42 511· 38 Y.LI_ 411- 40 41.1- 6152 61 62 66 75 59 66 64 2153 ~~

41 45 41 43 41~~

5154 47 55 41 45 46 g155 61 56 73 44 49 54 58

156 62 62 61 64 §4 60 62 1157 39 42 61.~ l.J.5 53 43 3

Books

Bache lor , Joseph M., and Ralph L. Henry, American -- Think% and Wri t i . , D . Appleton-Century Company, New York, 1942, --

Canby, Ilenry S e i d e l , Engl i sh C o m p o s i t i o ~ In Theory and i n P r a c t i c e , The I-lacmillan Company, New York, 1 9 2 0 . - , and John Baker Opdycke, Elements of Composition for

Secondary Schools4, The Macmillan Company, Net1 Yorlr, 1920.

M i r r i e l e e s , Lucia B., Teaching Composition gcJ L i t e r a t u r e , Harcour t , Brace and Company, Chicago, 1937.

Pence , Raymond W., College Composition, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1929.

Rankin, Thomas E., Clarence D. Thorpe, and Melvin T . Solve, College Composition, Harper and Bro the r s , New York, 1929

Reed, Percy I s a a c , and E l i z a b e t h Fros t Reed, Applied Composition, Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1936.

Shaw, Harry, Complete_ Course i n Freshman Engl ish , The Macmillan Company, New York, 1929.

S h e r i d a n , Bernard M., Speaking and t t r i t i n ~ English, Benjamin H. Sanborn Company, Boston, 1927.

Sh iphe rd , Robinson Hb , T h e Fine A r t of Wri t ing Tor Those FJho Teach It, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1 9 2 r

Thomas, Charles Swain, The Teaching of Engl i sh , Houghton Mi f f l i n Company, New York, 19175-

P e r i o d i c a l A r t i c l e s

App, Aust in J., "Old Ben Jonson on Grading composition^,^^ C o l l e s Engl i sh , XIV (February, 1943 ) . --

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bachelor, Joseph M., and Ralph L. Henry, American Thinkingand WritiJag, D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, 19~2.

Canby, Henry Seidel, E.J1g1ish Composi tton in Theory and inPractice, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1920.

____~, and John Baker Opdycke, Element~ of Compositiol1 forSecondqrJ!: School~, The Macmillan Company, Ne\'l York, 1920.

Mirrielees, Lucia B., Teaching Composition and Literature,Harcourt, Brace and Company, Chicago, 1937.

Pence, Raymond W., College Composition, The MacmillanCompany, New York, 1929.

Rankin, Thomas E., Clarence D. Thorpe, and Melvin T. Solve,Colle~~ Composition, Harper and Brothers, New York,1929.

Reed, Percy Isaac, and Elizabeth Frost Reed, AppliedComposition, Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1936.

Shaw, Harry, Complet~ Course in Freshman En~ish, The MacmillanCompany, New York, 1929.

Sheridan, Bernard M., Speaki~ and Writing English,Benjamin H. Sanborn Company, Boston, 1927.

Shipherc1, Robinson H., The .!2rl§. Art of vlriting for Those VlhoTeach It, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1926.

Thomas, Charles Swain, The TeachinE of Englis~, HoughtonMifflin Company, New York, 1917.

Periodica~ Article~

App, Austin J., "Old Ben Jonson on Grading Compositions,"Coll~ EPglish, XIV (February, 19~3).

Diederich, Paul Be , !'The Measurement of S k i l l i n Fixiting,lf School Review, LIV (~ecember, 1946).

Edrniston, R. W e , and C. IT. Gingerich, ItThe Rela-tion of Factors of knglish 'usage t o ~ o m ~ o s i t i o n ' " Journal of Educational Research, lXXXVI (December, 19425.

F le tcher , Frank M., and W. H. Hi ldre th , IfEvaluation of an English Placement Test ," Educational Research Bullet in , XXVIII (January, 1947)

Henry, George, ftHow t o Get I n t e r e s t i ng Themes," - The English Journal, Xlr'III (September, 1944).

Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, ltFactors i n Reading Comprehen~ion,~' Educational Administration Supervision, ,W (November, 1949)

Turner, Luci le , "Theories and Prac t i ces i n Evaluation and Correction of Oral and Written C o m p o ~ i t i o n , ~ ~ Peabodx Journal of Education, X I X (>arch, 1942).

Wykoff, George S. I tfSuggestions f o r the Reading of Themes , If

C o l l e s English, XCI (January, 1950), -

52

Diederich, Paul B., "The Measurement of Skill in \'lri ting, II

School Review, LIV (December, 1946).

Edmiston, R. W., and C. N. Gingerich, "The Relation of Factorsof English Usage to Composition~" Journal of EducationalResearch, XXXVI (December, 1942).

Fletcher, Frank N., and vi. H. Hildreth, "Evaluation of anEnglish Placement Test,1l Educational Research Bulletin,XXVIII (January, 1949)0

Henry, George, "How to Get Interesting Themes," The EnglishJournal, XXIII (September, 19~4).

Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, "Factors in Reading Comprehension,1IEducational Administration and Supervision, xx:v (November,19~9). ---

Turner, Lucile, "Theories and Practices in Evaluation andCorrection of Oral and 'ltlritten Composition," PeabodyJournal of Education, XIX (March, 1942).

\'lykoff, George S., "Suggestions for the Reading of Themes,"Colle~ English, XXI (January, 1950).